Opinion
Case No. 1D00-451 AND 1D00-578.
Opinion filed July 17, 2001.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. N. Sanders Sauls, Judge.
Jeffrey L. Frehn and Katherine E. Giddings of Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Bryant Yon, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellants State of Florida, Department of Lottery Sylvia H. Walbolt, Martha Harrell Chumbler, and Joseph H. Lang, Jr.
of Carlton Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith, Cutler, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellants Automated Wagering International, Inc.
Thomas Panza, Mark A. Emanuele, and Deborah S. Platz of Planza, Maurer, Maynard Neel, Ft. Lauderdale and John K. Aurell, John R. Beranek and Martin B. Sipple of Ausley McMullen, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING, REHEARING EN BANC, AND FOR CERTIFICATION
Appellants, State of Florida, Department of the Lottery, and Automated Wagering International, Inc., have each filed motions seeking rehearing, rehearing en banc, or certification of questions to the Florida Supreme Court. In response to these motions, we certify the following questions as being of great public importance:
1. Does the Department of the Lottery, pursuant to a specification included in a request for proposals, have the authority to negotiate substantive contract terms with the most highly qualified respondent, and pursuant to such negotiations, award a contract that must be upheld absent a finding of illegality, fraud, oppression, or misconduct?
2. Where the negotiation clause in a request for proposals indicates that the agency will negotiate a contract with the most highly qualified respondent, including conditions and price that the agency deems to be fair, competitive, and reasonable, may an unsuccessful proposer that has failed to administratively contest the negotiation clause later attack the contract in circuit court on the basis that the negotiations conducted pursuant to the terms of that clause were impermissible?
We deny the motions for rehearing and for rehearing en banc.
BOOTH and KAHN, JJ., concur. MINER, J., specially concurring with opinion.
Because the issues presented herein need to be resolved without further delay, I concur in the denial of the motions for rehearing and rehearing en banc. I also concur in the substance of the questions certified to the Florida Supreme Court although, were the decision mine alone to make, I might frame them a bit differently.