Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, Inc. v. Liberty County

Summary

The Florida First District Court of Appeal held that a county could not waive a bidder's material failure to submit a required bid for one of two specified alternatives in a public-works solicitation. Although the court initially directed the county to readvertise the contract, rehearing established that remedy was moot because construction had been completed. The court permitted the disappointed bidder to pursue limited promissory-estoppel damages against the county, including reliance damages and qualifying litigation expenses and attorney's fees, but not lost profits.

Holdings

1. A bid that materially deviates from published specifications is not a satisfactory bid under sections 336.44(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (1979), and the governmental entity may not waive a mandatory bidding requirement when the deviation can confer a competitive advantage or impair bid comparison.
2. Proof of fraud, favoritism, or misconduct is ordinarily required to enjoin a public-contract award, but injunctive relief may also be granted when the complaint alleges a clear violation of a competitive-bidding statute.
3. A rejected bidder may pursue promissory-estoppel relief when a governmental entity's solicitation of bids implies a promise to comply with competitive-bidding statutes, the bidder reasonably and detrimentally relies on that promise, and the requested equitable remedy becomes unavailable because the contract has been completed.
4. Recovery for promissory estoppel in this public-bidding context is limited to consequential and reliance damages, which may include reasonable litigation expenses and attorney's fees incurred because of the governmental entity's wrongful conduct, but does not include expected profits from the unawarded contract.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Gulf Asphalt's failure to bid on a mandatory alternative was a material deviation from the published bidding specifications and a violation of Florida's competitive-bidding statute.
2. Whether injunctive relief or amendment of the complaint was available without proof of fraud, favoritism, or misconduct by the county.
3. Whether, after completion of the public-works contract rendered readvertisement moot, Baxter could pursue promissory-estoppel damages.
4. Whether Baxter's recovery could include reliance and consequential damages, litigation expenses, and attorney's fees, but exclude anticipated lost profits.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded