Syringa Networks, LLC v. Idaho Department of Administration
305 P.3d 499
| Idaho | 2013Background
- Idaho Legislature enacted IEN to provide high-bandwidth distance learning network; Department of Administration oversaw procurement via open competitive bidding.
- RFP issued Dec 15, 2008 for first phase; proposals due Jan 12, 2009; proposals deemed offers valid for 180 days.
- Bidders conference Dec 29, 2008; answers indicated a multi-award for up to four providers with a single accountable end-user point.
- Jan 6, 2009 amendment limited term to five years with three five-year extensions; questions clarified potential multi-vendor award.
- Syringa ( Idaho) teamed with ENA (Tennessee) to respond; Qwest and Verizon also submitted responsive proposals.
- Initial awards on Jan 28, 2009 to Qwest and ENA; changes later designated Qwest backbone and ENA as E-rate coordinator; Syringa contended this altered the RFP after bids.
- Syringa sued Dec 15, 2009; district court granted summary judgment to several defendants; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge amended awards | Syringa has an injury from altered RFP; qualifies via privity in context. | Syringa lacks privity and cannot challenge amendments; not a party to ENA/Qwest contracts. | Syringa had standing when considering amendments to the bids in light of the RFP. |
| Administrative remedies exhaustion | Exhaustion not required because remedies did not exist for this challenge. | Exhaust remedies under I.C. 67-5733; amendments not covered. | District court erred; Syringa excused from exhaustion because no remedies existed for this challenge. |
| Enforceability of teaming agreement | Teaming agreement bound ENA/Syringa post-award; price and terms not fully set. | Agreement lacked essential terms; not enforceable. | Teamings agreement not enforceable; no binding contract between ENA and Syringa. |
| Tortious interference with contract | Qwest/State interfered with Syringa’s expected contractual relationships. | No enforceable contract to interfere with; action barred. | No actionable tort for interference with contract given lack of enforceable contract. |
| Tortious interference with prospective economic advantage | Qwest interfered with Syringa’s anticipated subcontract with ENA. | Decision to divide work was unilateral by the Department; no wrongful inducement. | No genuine issue; summary judgment for lack of wrongful interference; claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miles v. Idaho Power Co., 116 Idaho 635 (1989) (standing requires injury in fact and traceable causation)
- Selkirk-Priest Basin Ass’n, Inc. v. State ex rel. Batt, 128 Idaho 831 (1996) (injury must be distinct and not shared by all citizens)
- Young v. City of Ketchum, 137 Idaho 102 (2002) (fairly traceable causal connection needed)
- Troutner v. Kempthome, 142 Idaho 389 (2006) (standing require injury and traceable harm)
- O’Bryant v. City of Idaho Falls, 78 Idaho 313 (1956) (indirect evasion of prohibited direct conduct not allowed)
- Mitchell v. Siqueiros, 99 Idaho 396 (1978) (subcontractor bids do not bind without acceptances; price is a material term)
- Cantwell v. City of Boise, 146 Idaho 127 (2008) (elements of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage)
- Yoakum v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 129 Idaho 171 (1996) (motive and wrongful means can establish illegality of interference)
- Dale’s Service Co., Inc. v. Jones, 96 Idaho 662 (1975) (enforceability requires definite terms; too much open terms = nonbinding)
- Bybee v. Isaac, 145 Idaho 251 (2008) (tortious interference standards applied to contract)
- Idaho First Nat’l Bank v. Bliss Valley Foods, Inc., 121 Idaho 266 (1991) (contract-related attorney fee standards; open to multiple statutes)
- State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc., 130 Idaho 718 (1997) (statutory basis for attorney fees; not exclusive)