Preview:

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI # I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-29630 11-MAY-2012 10:46 AM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I ---o0o--ALOHACARE, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee. NO. SCWC-29630 CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 29630; CR. NO. 08-1-1531) May 11, 2012 ACOBA, DUFFY, AND MCKENNA, J.J.; WITH RECKTENWALD, C.J., DISSENTING, WITH WHOM NAKAYAMA, J., JOINS OPINION OF THE COURT BY ACOBA, J. We hold (1) that Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant AlohaCare (Petitioner), a bidder for a health and human services contract under Hawai#i Revised Statutes (HRS) 103F, may not appeal the denial of a contract award by Respondent/DefendantAppellee the Department of Human Services (Respondent) under the procedures set forth in HRS chapter 103D (pertaining generally to

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI # I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

other State procurement contracts) that afford judicial review for bidders denied protests; (2) however, as construed, HRS chapter 103F does not prohibit judicial review of the administrative denial of such matters and review may be afforded under the declaratory judgment statute, HRS chapter 632. See

Alaka#i Na Keiki, Inc. v. Matayoshi, ____ Hawai#i ___, ___ P.3d ___ (2012) (Alaka#i II); (3) review and denial of a bidder's protest by Respondent as the purchasing agency and subsequent denial of a request for reconsideration by the chief procurement officer housed in a different executive agency do not assuage separation of powers concerns between the executive and judicial branches of government because review is accomplished only in the executive branch of government; and (4) Petitioner is not denied the constitutional rights of due process or equal protection by HRS chapter 103F, inasmuch as judicial review may be obtained by way of a declaratory judgment action.1 Applying the holding to this case, we vacate the August 12, 2011 judgment of the ICA and the January 8, 2009 judgment of the court. We remand this case to the court for disposition

consistent with this opinion.

Petitioner seeks review of the August 12, 2011 judgment of the ICA filed pursuant to its July 29, 2011 Summary Disposition Order (SDO), affirming the Judgment and Order Dismissing AlohaCare's Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit(the court) on January 8, 2009. The SDO was filed by Presiding Judge Daniel R. Foley and Associate Judges Alexa D.M. Fujise and Katherine G. Leonard. The Honorable Eden E. Hifo presided at the court.

1

2

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI # I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

I. In October 2007, Respondent issued a request for proposals (RFP) to solicit providers for QUEST Expanded Access (QExA) Managed Care Plans to eligible individuals who are aged, blind, and disabled. Petitioner submitted a proposal, but it was

not one of the two health plans ultimately awarded a contract.2 On February 22, 2008, Petitioner lodged a protest with the Director of Respondent, the head of the purchasing agency described in HRS

Download Alohacare v. Department of Human Services, State of Hawaii.  Opinion by J. Reckt

Hawaii Law