277 P.3d 988
Haw.2012Background
- DOE issued an RFP in 2004 to provide health and human services; contracts ran 2005–2006.
- ANK's proposal was rejected for not meeting 70-point eligibility; ANK scored 51.2.
- Petitioner protested alleging unfair evaluation, failure to follow 103F procedures, and lack of criteria for multiple awards.
- DOE rescored and still did not award ANK a contract; protests and reconsideration decisions followed.
- ICA affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of review under 103F as a preclusive regime; case later proceeded to Hawaiʻi Supreme Court.
- Petitioner sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and negligence damages; the court remanded on Counts I–IV for reconsideration consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HRS chapter 103F unconstitutionally delegates judicial power. | ANK contends 103F precludes review and violates separation of powers. | Matayoshi argues legislature validly assigns protest remedies and preserves checks. | No constitutional delegation; 103F not unconstitutional. |
| Whether the TRO/Review of the DOE’s actions is barred by STLA or private right of action. | ANK claims STLA allows tort action for negligent procurement. | STLA does not create a private right; immunity abides. | STLA bars ANK’s tort claim. |
| Whether declaratory relief is available to review 103F decisions. | ANK asserts declaratory judgment under HRS 632-1 is available. | Declaratory relief is precluded by 103F’s exclusive remedies. | Declaratory relief available; however, statute’s scope controls—outcome remanded. |
| Whether the ICA erred in holding that 103F precludes judicial review entirely. | ANK asserts potential review under 632-1 should be allowed. | ICA correctly held exclusive remedies limit review. | ICA's preclusion position rejected; remand ordered for counts consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaho
ohanohano v. State, 117 Hawaii 262 (Haw. 2008) (private right of action under STLA necessity analysis) - State v. Bani, 97 Hawai`i 285 (Haw. 2001) (separation of powers; check on governmental action)
- New York City Dept. of Environmental Protection v. New York City Civil Serv. Comm'n, 78 N.Y.2d 318 (N.Y. 1991) (judicial review despite finality language may be required for constitutional rights or illegality)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Hawaii Roofing, Inc., 64 Haw. 380 (Haw. 1982) (declaratory relief vs. statutory review—distinguish when appropriate)
- Commodity Futures Trading Comm. v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1986) (separation of powers and delegation of adjudicatory power; check on agency)