Justia Government Contracts Opinion Summaries

In a procurement dispute, the Honolulu Board of Water Supply (BWS) solicited bids for a well-drilling project and disqualified Alpha, Inc. for not having the required contractor’s license. Alpha challenged the decision administratively and judicially, arguing that its bid was responsive and that the winning bidder, Beylik/Energetic A JV, was nonresponsive. BWS maintained that the administrative hearings officer and courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the protest because Alpha did not meet the statutory requirement that the protest concern a matter worth at least ten percent of the contract’s value.The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) concluded that the ten percent requirement was not jurisdictional and had jurisdiction to hear Alpha’s appeal. On the merits, OAH found that Alpha’s bid was nonresponsive due to the lack of a required subcontractor listing. The Circuit Court of the First Circuit affirmed OAH’s decision, agreeing that BWS could require a C-27 license for tree removal and that Alpha’s bid was nonresponsive. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) also affirmed, holding that the ten percent requirement related to standing, not jurisdiction, and that Alpha had standing to appeal.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reversed the ICA’s decision, holding that the ten percent requirement is jurisdictional. The court concluded that Alpha did not meet this requirement, and therefore, OAH and the courts lacked jurisdiction to review BWS’s decision. The court also provided guidance on the merits, affirming BWS’s disqualification of Alpha’s bid for not listing a required subcontractor and not having the proper license for tree removal. View "Alpha Inc. v. Board of Water Supply" on Justia Law

John Hasircoglu was an employee of a subcontractor to FOPCO, Inc., the general contractor on a tunnel construction project on Molokai. In response to a request by the State, FOPCO identified Donald Clark and Michael Estes, neither of whom were FOPCO employees, as “project superintendent and key personnel.” The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of FOPCO on all claims. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed on the grounds that Estes and Clark were not agents of FOPCO, and therefore, FOPCO could not be held vicariously liable for their alleged negligence. The Supreme Court vacated in part and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) there existed a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there was an agency relationship between FOPCO and Estes and/or Clark based on actual express or implied authority; and (2) summary judgment was proper as to Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. View "Hasircoglu v. FOPCO, Inc." on Justia Law