Opinion ID: 1040113
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Role of the deputy commissioner

Text: North Pacific argued that there was institutional bias in the decision-making process and that the communications between agency staff and the hearing officer were inappropriate. North Pacific further claimed that the deputy commissioner, as the final decision maker, improperly relied on his staff in rendering the final decision. Rejecting these arguments, the superior court concluded “that all the commissioner needs to do to comply with AS 36.30.675 and .680 is to issue the final decision.” iii. Role of institutional subordinates within the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities North Pacific argued that Chief Contracting Officer O’Brien and the agency’s assigned assistant attorney general could not play any role in the process leading to the final decision. The superior court determined, however, that the involvement of institutional subordinates did not taint the agency’s neutrality or “overstep any statutory assignments of authority.”17 The superior court further found that North Pacific had “not proved by a preponderance of evidence that [the deputy commissioner], [Chief Contracting Officer] O’Brien and [the assistant attorney general] were individually or collectively personally biased against [North Pacific].” iv. Alleged deprivation of a hearing North Pacific argued that it was deprived of a hearing because the final decision maker had minimal exposure to the raw information from the hearing. Specifically, North Pacific objected to the deputy commissioner’s failure to review the 17 See AS 36.30.675(b) (“The commissioner of administration or the commissioner of transportation and public facilities may affirm, modify, or reject the hearing officer’s recommendation in whole or in part, may remand the matter to the hearing officer with instructions, or take other appropriate action.”); AS 36.30.685(a)-(b) (allowing the final decision of the commissioner of transportation and public facilities to be appealed to the superior court). -16- 6818 record before rejecting the hearing officer’s decision. Although the superior court acknowledged that this argument had “more than a little surface appeal,” it nonetheless rejected North Pacific’s argument for two reasons: (1) “the oral testimony was not the entire record,” and the agency decisions were based on the hearing officer’s decision and the available exhibits; and (2) the “problem is that to enforce an adequate role by the final decision maker would almost always require exploration into the deliberative process.” As a result, the superior court concluded that North Pacific had “been provided a hearing process that complie[d] with due process.” v. Alleged ex parte contact North Pacific claimed the final agency decision was based on ex parte communications between O’Brien and the hearing officer and thus violated due process. Again, the superior court rejected North Pacific’s argument. While the superior court found that O’Brien requested clarification from the hearing officer and that the hearing officer responded,18 the court concluded that there was no traditional ex parte contact because the communication did not involve a party to the case. The superior court further concluded that the erroneous factual finding that was likely caused by the exchange did not substantially impact the agency decision. b. The superior court’s appellate review of the alleged errors of contract interpretation After reviewing North Pacific’s differing site condition claim, the contract, and the reasoning of the hearing officer and the deputy commissioner, the superior court considered whether North Pacific “could have learned of the condition of the pan deck by a site inspection or other reasonable inspection.” The superior court concluded that the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities had a reasonable basis in deciding 18 See supra Part II.B.4.a. -17- 6818 a) that [North Pacific] should have inspected the site; and b) that had it attended the pre-bid meeting and asked the simplest question (but the most important to its bid): May we see a sample of the exposed pan deck?; and c) that [the Department] would have provided an effective prompt and informative response, that is, [the Department] would have revealed a portion of exposed embossed pan deck for inspection. By asking that question [North Pacific] would have received an appropriate response and [North Pacific] would not be where it is today. Thus, the superior court affirmed the agency’s conclusions denying North Pacific’s differing site condition claim. c. Attorney’s fees The State requested attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party. North Pacific opposed, arguing that AS 09.60.010 19 barred an award of attorney’s fees to the State because North Pacific had raised constitutional due process issues. Finding that the State was the prevailing party, the superior court awarded it thirty percent of the actual reasonable fees incurred under Alaska Civil Rule 82 as well as costs under Alaska Civil Rule 79.