Case Name: TUTTLE/WHITE CONSTRUCTORS, INC., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, and Gorham Construction Company, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1979-06-19
Citations: 371 So. 2d 1096
Docket Number: No. LL-39
Parties: TUTTLE/WHITE CONSTRUCTORS, INC., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, and Gorham Construction Company, Appellees.
Judges: MILLS, Acting C. J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 371
Pages: 1096–1098

Head Matter:
TUTTLE/WHITE CONSTRUCTORS, INC., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, and Gorham Construction Company, Appellees.
No. LL-39.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
June 19, 1979.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 1, 1979.
Jon M. Wilson, of Van Den Berg, Gay & Burke, P. A., Orlando, for appellant.
Spiro T. Kypreos, Tallahassee, for appel-lee Dept, of General Services.
Robert D. Melton, Orlando, for Gorham Const. Co., appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant contractor appeals a final order of the Department of General Services of the State of Florida adopting a report of a hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings recommending that appellant's claims for additional compensation over and above the contract price, under a contract with the Department to construct a youth detention facility, be denied due to the untimely filing of notice of such claims.
We affirm. Articles 8.3.1, 8.3.2 and 12.2.1 of the General Conditions of the contract for construction (AIA Document A-201) which pertain to claims on the part of the contractor (appellant herein) for additional compensation based upon claims for delays or extensions of time not due to the contractor's fault, or upon claims for additional costs incurred by the contractor in the performance of the contract, require that all such claims shall be made in writing to the architect no more than twenty days after the occurrence of the event giving rise to any such claim, or else any such claim shall be waived or deemed invalid. (Emphasis supplied). The hearing officer found that in each instance for which a claim was made the contractor had failed to give the notice of claim within the prescribed twenty day limitation period.
Our examination of the record herein leads us to the conclusion that these findings of the hearing officer as to each claim of the contractor is supported by substantial competent evidence and that we should not substitute a contrary judgment for that of the agency which is based upon such evidence. McDonald v. Dept. of Banking and Finance, (1977, Fla.App. D1) 346 So.2d 569; Pasco County School Board v. Florida Public Employees Relation Commission, et al., (1977, Fla.App. D1) 353 So.2d 108; U. S. Y. & T. Industries, Inc. f/k/a Union Stockyards & Transit Company of Chicago v. Charolais Herds & Ranchers, Inc., (1979, Fla.App. D1) 367 So.2d 1084, and cases cited therein.
Affirmed.
MILLS, Acting C. J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.
ERVIN, J., dissents.