Alpha Inc. v. Board of Water Supply. ICA Opinion, filed 12/29/2023 [ada], 153 Haw. 564. Motion for Reconsideration, filed 01/08/2024. ICA Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration, filed 01/31/2024 [ada]. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 04/19/2024. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 04/22/2024. ICA Order of Correction, filed 03/22/2024. ICA Amended Order of Correction, filed 04/25/2024 [ada]. S.Ct Order Accepting Applications for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/30/2024 [ada]., 555 P.3d 173

The Honolulu Board of Water Supply (BWS) issued a solicitation for a multi-million-dollar well-drilling project, including requirements for a C-27 license for tree trimming and removal.
Alpha, Inc. submitted a bid without a C-27 license or a listed subcontractor for tree trimming; BWS disqualified Alpha and awarded the contract to the only other bidder, Beylik.
Alpha protested BWS’s decision, arguing their C-17 license sufficed and that their subcontractor’s portion was less than one percent of the bid, thus not needing to be listed.
Alpha's protest was rejected administratively (OAH), by the circuit court, and then by the ICA, primarily over the license and subcontractor listing requirements.
Jurisdiction for procurement protests under Hawaiʻi law requires that the dispute concern an issue worth at least 10% of the contract's value for contracts over $1 million, a point disputed throughout the appeals.
The Supreme Court reviewed both Alpha’s disqualification and whether the 10% threshold was a matter of standing (waivable) or subject matter jurisdiction (mandatory).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the 10% threshold in HRS § 103D-709(d) jurisdictional or standing?	Standing requirement, not jurisdictional	Jurisdictional, bars Alpha's appeal	Jurisdictional – bars administrative/judicial review
Did Alpha meet the 10% minimum controversy requirement?	Entire contract value is in controversy	Only the value of disputed line item	Alpha did not meet 10% – $95K is <2% of $6M contract
Was Alpha properly disqualified for not listing a subcontractor or lacking the correct license?	C-17 license sufficed; sub <1% excused	C-27 license required, no waiver	Disqualification was proper, BWS acted within discretion
Does estoppel or waiver prevent BWS from disqualifying Alpha?	BWS’s letter misled Alpha, should be estopped	No reliance, no intentional waiver	No estoppel or waiver – no detrimental reliance

Sierra Club v. Dep't of Transp., 115 Hawaiʻi 299 (statutory standing requirements derive from legislative intent, not solely common law)
Furuya v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of Pac. Monarch, Inc., 137 Hawaiʻi 371 (promissory estoppel requires detrimental reliance)
Citizens for Prot. of N. Kohala Coastline v. Cnty. of Hawaiʻi, 91 Hawaiʻi 94 (standing focuses on the party seeking relief)
Coon v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 98 Hawaiʻi 233 (waiver requires knowing relinquishment of a right)
Barker v. Young, 153 Hawaiʻi 144 (statutory interpretation principles)