Davis Wright Tremaine LLP v. State, Department of Administration
324 P.3d 293
Alaska2014Background
- A state agency issued an RFP for legal services to assist with federal hydroelectric licensing to Juneau, with a June 17 deadline later moved to June 29; Davis Wright Tremaine (DWT) submitted late but was initially accepted for evaluation; Van Ness Feldman protested alleging scoring errors and late-proposal handling; the department rescinded the first award and awarded to Van Ness Feldman after protest; the superior court and Alaska Supreme Court upheld the agency’s decisions
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of late protest on procurement | DWT argues late protest improperly considered | Department found good cause to consider merits despite untimeliness | Good cause supported; merits considered despite lateness |
| Interpretation of 2 AAC 12.250 | Regulation bars late proposals unless RFP explicitly allows | RFP lacked explicit waiver; regulation valid as a general bar | Regulation enforcing late-proposal bar reasonable and not inconsistent with statute |
| Certificate of authority and responsiveness | Van Ness Feldman lacked certificate; proposal nonresponsive | Certificate not required by RFP; proposal responsive without it | Lack of certificate did not render Van Ness Feldman's proposal nonresponsive |
| Authority to accept late submissions vs. strict adherence | Procurement code preserves common law materiality standard | Agency may interpret regulations to promote procurement integrity | Agency interpretation reasonable; decision sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Progressive Ins. Co. v. Simmons, 953 P.2d 510 (Alaska 1998) (good cause factors in protests)
- Laidlaw Transit, Inc. v. Anchorage Sch. Dist., 118 P.3d 1018 (Alaska 2005) (materiality standard for late proposals)
- Marathon Oil Co. v. State, Dep’t of Natural Res., 254 P.3d 1078 (Alaska 2011) (agency deference in regulatory interpretation)
- Kelly v. Zamarello, 486 P.2d 906 (Alaska 1971) (interpretation of procurement standards; material deviations)
- Burke v. Houston NANA, L.L.C., 222 P.3d 851 (Alaska 2010) (statutory interpretation in procurement context)