2 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Nan's Request for Review to the extent the request challenged the validity and appropriateness of the experience requirements set forth in the Solicitation and (2) in exercising jurisdiction over that part of Nan's Request for Review that was not based on the contents of the Solicitation, i.e., Nan's claim that BWS improperly determined that Nan was a nonresponsible bidder based on an HDD experience requirement that was not stated in the Solicitation. We hold that the Circuit Court did not err: (1) in ruling that the Hearings Officer lacked jurisdiction to consider 1/ The Honorable Jeffrey P. On appeal, Nan contends that the Circuit Court erred: (1) in finding that Nan's Request for Review was based on the content of the bid solicitation (Solicitation), such that the Hearings Officer lacked jurisdiction to consider Nan's request (2) in ignoring the Hearings Officer's finding that she "can find no language, nor can or point to any part of the Solicitation that clearly requires bidders to provide specific experience" and (3) in granting deference to BWS and failing to determine whether BWS's actions were consistent with the Hawai#i Procurement Code. Application for Judicial Review, Filed August 18, 2021, and Substantive Joinder to Hawaiian Dredging's Application for Judicial Review, Filed August 19, 2021" (FOFs/COLs/Order). Nan also challenges the Circuit Court's Septem"Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Granting. Nan appeals from the SeptemJudgment, entered in favor of BWS and Hawaiian Dredging (collectively, Appellees) by the Circuit Court. After further briefing and a hearing, the Circuit Court directed the Hearings Officer to set aside her decision and to enter an order containing a directive reinstating the contract award to Hawaiian Dredging. Hawaiian Dredging appealed the Hearings Officer's decision to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court),1/ and BWS joined the appeal. After briefing and a hearing, the Hearings Officer vacated BWS's determination of Nan's "nonresponsibility" and ordered that BWS's contract award to Hawaiian Dredging be terminated. Nan submitted a request for administrative review (Request for Review) of BWS's decision to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. BWS awarded the contract to IntervenorAppellant-Appellee Hawaiian Dredging Construction Company, Inc. (Nan), BWS determined that Nan was a "nonresponsible" bidder for the Project (i.e., not capable of FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER fully performing the contract requirements) and that BWS would not consider Nan's bid. After receiving a bid from Petitioner- Appellee-Appellant Nan, Inc. In 2021, Respondent-Appellee-Appellee Board of Water Supply (BWS) invited bids for a project to construct a concrete reservoir (Project). 1CCV-21-0001032) OCTOBY: GINOZA, C.J., AND WADSWORTH AND MCCULLEN, JJ. CAAP-21-0000533 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. HIKIDA, HEARINGS OFFICER, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Appellees-Appellees NO. NAN, INC., Petitioner-Appellee-Appellant, and BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY, Respondent-Appellee-Appellee, and DESIREE L. 52 OP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I –––O0O––– HAWAIIAN DREDGING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Intervenor-Appellant-Appellee, v. FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-21-0000533 3 10:02 AM Dkt.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |