Opinion ID: 871688
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: DHS's arguments

Text: In its answering brief, DHS primarily argues that AlohaCare does not have standing to appeal because it is not an aggrieved person. [21] DHS also contends that Aloha-Care does not have standing because HRS chapter 432D does not create a private right of action. [22] Third, DHS argues that Aloha-Care does not have standing because, it is not a party or third party beneficiary of the QExA contract that may, under Hawai`i case law, statute, rule, or regulation, seek a declaration that the contract is `null and void' due to alleged `illegality.' DHS next argues that AlohaCare waived its argument that United's and Ohana's lack of HMO licenses disqualified them as successful bidders for the QExA RFP because AlohaCare did not raise this issue in its initial protest of the award to the DHS Director in February 2008, which was subsequently upheld by the Chief Procurement Officer. [23] Finally, DHS argues, without citation to case law or the record, that the Insurance Commissioner should not have conducted a hearing on AlohaCare's Petition because the Insurance Commissioner should have recognized [AlohaCare's] true purpose of attempting to overturn the decision of the Procurement Officer, and evade the exclusive remedy set by the state legislature[ ] such that any appellate review of that decision is improper.