Opinion
April 5, 1950.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Escambia County, L.L. Fabisinski, J.
Coe Eggart, Pensacola, for appellant.
Philip D. Beall and Fisher, Fisher, Hepner Fitzpatrick, Pensacola, for appellees.
Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 100, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., the electorate of Escambia County approved the purchase of voting machines for use in general and special elections. The County Commissioners advertised for bids to furnish one hundred and twenty such machines. It appears that there are only two manufacturers of voting machines in this country, the Automatic Voting Machine Corporation and the Shoup Voting Machine Corporation. Both manufacturers submitted bids, the bid of Shoup Voting Machine Corporation being $1396 per unit, and the bid of Automatic Voting Machine Corporation being $1371 per unit.
This suit was brought by R. Brownlee Eggart as a taxpayer of the County and Automatic Voting Machine Corporation, the low bidder, to enjoin the County Commissioners from contracting with Shoup Voting Machine Corporation to purchase the machines. The basis of the prayer for injunctive relief is that Shoup Voting Machine Corporation was not the lowest responsible bidder as contemplated by the statute authorizing the purchase. On final hearing the bill of complaint was dismissed and the plaintiffs appealed.
The point for determination may be stated as follows: When two responsible manufacturers bid on a proposal to furnish voting machines and the product offered by each meets the specifications requested, have the County Commissioners the discretion to accept the article of the highest bidder on the ground that they think it is better for the County?
This question appears to have been litigated on the theory that voting machines are "county supplies" as contemplated by Section 125.08, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A. This statute requires that certain work and purchases made by the County Commissioners, in excess of $300, be contracted for after notice and advertisement for bids, and the "bid of the lowest responsible bidder shall be accepted, unless the county commissioners shall reject all bids because the same are too high."
We do not think the County Commissioners are controlled by this statute in the matter of purchasing voting machines. Chapter 100, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., is a special law governing the purchase of voting machines and Section 100.06 provides that when the use of voting machines is approved by the County the County Commissioners "may provide for the payment therefor in such manner as they may deem for the best interest of their respective localities."
There certainly would be no objection to the County Commissioners adopting the method provided in Section 125.08 for securing bids to purchase voting machines, but if they should do so, under the facts of this case, we would not hold the purchase in violation of the statute because the lowest bid was not accepted. The words "lowest responsible bidder" are not to be taken literally. The County Commissioners have a discretion in making such purchases and may take note of the mechanical operation of the machine, the facility with which it manipulates, the material of which it is constructed, the effect on it of the climatic and other environment in which it is to be used, its wearing quality or any other factors that tend to render it accurate or serviceable, lasting or "fool proof."
In this case the County Commissioners were confronted with two good machines. The difference in the bids was small and there is no showing whatever that this difference actuated the County Commissioners in their selection. There is no showing of fraud or overreaching or that the County Commissioners were intimidated or were actuated by any influence other than to secure the best machine. They had a perfect right to lay both machines by the pattern defined in the preceding paragraph and be guided accordingly.
The point raised with reference to interest rates on the certificates to pay for the voting machines is not material for the reasons previously stated, and the further reason that the proposal called for cash bids, terms of payment to be agreed on by the successful bidder and the County Commissioners.
The question of whether or not the certificates of indebtedness to pay for the machines were issued in compliance with the provisions of law for the issuance of securities to borrow money is concluded against the contention of appellant by State ex rel. Houston v. Hillsborough County, 136 Fla. 503, 183 So. 157 and State ex rel. Gallaway v. Henderson, 134 Fla. 731, 184 So. 654.
Affirmed.
CHAPMAN, SEBRING and HOBSON, JJ., concur.