Alpine Orthopaedic Specialists, LLC v. Utah State University
263 P.3d 501
Utah Ct. App.2011Background
- USU issued an RFP for intercollegiate team physician services and Alpine had an existing 2001 Personal Services Agreement with a five-year term that automatically renews for another five years.
- The first term ran March 13, 2001 to March 12, 2006; USU planned to consider competitive bids in 2006 and issued an RFP in February 2006.
- Alpine protested USU’s decision to issue the RFP and argued the Agreement complied with the Utah Procurement Code; Alpine submitted a proposal on March 28, 2006.
- USU issued a decision (April 14, 2006) stating the Agreement was invalid and unenforceable due to procurement code violations and that the RFP would proceed; Alpine did not seek judicial review within 14 days.
- Effective May 30, 2006, USU contracted with Intermountain Healthcare, Inc. for the services; Alpine filed suit in district court in November 2006, later adding IHC as a defendant.
- The district court granted summary judgment to USU, holding that the contract was invalid but ratified by performance, and that Alpine’s suit was barred by the 20-day statute of limitations and failure to mitigate damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable statute of limitations for Alpine’s claim | Alpine argues 63G-6-817(3) applies to a breach claim | Alpine’s claim falls under 63G-6-815(1)(a) and 63G-6-817(1) | 63G-6-817(1) applies; complaint untimely and barred |
| Whether Alpine was aggrieved in connection with the solicitation or award of a contract | Alpine contends breach arises from renewal provision, not solicitation/award | Alpine’s breach claim is in connection with the RFP and award of the new contract | Yes, Alpine was aggrieved in connection with the solicitation/award under 63G-6-815(1)(a) |
| Whether a timely administrative remedy was pursued and affects the action | Alpine pursued administrative protest and sought judicial review within the code framework | Administrative remedies were available and the subsequent court action fell within 63G-6-815(1)(a) | Administrative remedy route chosen subjected Alpine to the provisions of the Procurement Code and its limits |
| Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment | Alpine contends valid contract and timely claim | USU's actions violated the Procurement Code yet the suit was time-barred | Court affirmed, holding the action barred by limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Gillmor v. Summit Cnty., 2010 UT 69 (Utah Supreme Court 2010) (statutory interpretation and standard of review for summary judgment)
- Gillmor v. Blue Ledge Corp., 2009 UT App 230 (Utah Appellate 2009) (standard of review and admissibility in summary judgment; favorable view to nonmovant)
- State v. MacGuire, 2004 UT 4 (Utah Supreme Court 2004) (statutory interpretation and plain meaning principles)
- Olsen v. Eagle Mountain City, 2011 UT 10 (Utah Supreme Court 2011) (plain meaning of common terms and interpretation of statutes)
- Keene v. Bonser, 2005 UT App 37 (Utah Appellate 2005) (dictionary-based interpretation of statutory terms)