Bachner Company, Inc. v. Weed
315 P.3d 1184
Alaska2013Background
- Bachner and Bowers were unsuccessful bidders on a state DOT contract for an Fairbanks office building.
- A procurement evaluation committee scored proposals on three criteria totaling 40 points; four members were sued personally.
- Scores were adjusted across three passes, with site visits after the second pass.
- Procurement officer added Alaska preference and price scores; committee had no control over these scores.
- Bachner alleged bad faith by the committee for considering impermissible criteria and altering scores; they sought relief under §1983 and state-law claims.
- Superior Court granted summary judgment for qualified immunity and exclusive remedy, holding no genuine issue of material fact and that the State could recover fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collateral estoppel applicability to prior proceedings | Bachner argues privity with the State estops re-litigation of findings | Committee members are not in privity with the State | Collateral estoppel does not apply to committee members |
| Qualified immunity scope for procurement officials | Bad faith shown by evidence; immunity should not apply | Officials acted in good faith within duties | Qualified immunity bars claims unless bad faith proven by admissible evidence |
| Exclusive remedy statute bar | Claims against individuals fall outside agency remit | Statute bars procurement-related claims against officials | Exclusive remedy bars Bachner’s claims against the committee members |
| Attorney’s fees against the State | Fees improper since State defended in-house | Fees payable to State for in-house defense justified | Fee award upheld; State proper prevailing party and fees affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Weed v. Bachner Co., 230 P.3d 697 (Alaska 2010) (discusses qualified immunity for procurement officials and malice vs. good faith)
- State, Dep’t of Health & Social Servs. v. Doherty, 167 P.3d 58 (Alaska 2007) (collateral estoppel privity limitations in Alaska)
- Smith v. Stafford, 189 P.3d 1065 (Alaska 2008) (bad faith may defeat immunity when evidence shows state of mind)
- J & S Services, Inc. v. Tomter, 139 P.3d 544 (Alaska 2006) (open animosity can defeat immunity when aimed at public bidding process)
- Aspen Exploration Corp. v. Sheffield, 739 P.2d 150 (Alaska 1987) (limits immunity when conduct is malicious or corrupt)
- Prentzel v. State, Dept. of Public Safety, 31 P.3d 1284 (Alaska 2001) (malice requires objective evidence to infer bad faith)
- Pauley v. Anchorage School District, 31 P.3d 1284 (Alaska 2001) (context for malice and evaluation of contested actions)
- Alpine Indus., Inc. v. Feyk, 22 P.3d 445 (Alaska 2001) (fee-shifting and prevailing party considerations)