Opinion ID: 1124217
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The Library and Ameritech contend that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the Hearings Officer's decision. They argue that CARL is not a person aggrieved by a final decision of a hearings officer under section 103D-709 because the Hearings Officer's decision was not final, and CARL may get the relief it seeks when the Library reevaluates the proposals on remand. They rely on our interpretations of the term final order in the context of HRS Chapter 91: `Final order' means an order ending the proceedings, leaving nothing further to be accomplished. Consequently, an order is not final if the rights of a party involved remain undetermined or if the matter is retained for further action. Mitchell v. State, Dep't of Educ., 77 Hawai`i 305, 307, 884 P.2d 368, 370 (1994) (quoting Gealon v. Keala, 60 Haw. 513, 520, 591 P.2d 621, 626 (1979) (citations omitted)). Unlike HRS § 91-14(a), however, under which this court has jurisdiction to review a final decision and order in a contested case, HRS § 103D-710(a) provides jurisdiction to review a final decision of a hearings officer under section 103D-709. HRS § 103D-712 provides that [r]equests for judicial review under section 103D-710 shall be filed in the supreme court within ten calendar days after the issuance of a written decision by the hearings officer under section 103D-709. Pursuant to HRS § 103D-709, hearings officers shall have power to ... find facts, make conclusions of law, and issue a written decision which shall be final and conclusive unless a person or governmental body adversely affected by the decision commences an appeal in the supreme court under section 103D-710. HRS § 103D-709(b). The written decision that the hearings officer has the power, and is, in fact, required, to make is whether the determinations of the chief procurement officer or the head of the purchasing agency ... were in accordance with the Constitution, statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the solicitation or contract. HRS § 103D-709(f). Having made the determination required by HRS § 103D-709(f)that Kane's denial of CARL's protest and award of the contract to Ameritech were in violation of the procurement code because the evaluation process and the concomitant award of the contract... did not comply with HRS § 103D-303(g), COL 34and having issued a written decision to that effect, pursuant to HRS § 103D-709(b), that written decision was final and conclusive unless appealed. Nothing in the procurement code or its implementing regulations gives the Hearings Officer authority to remand to the Library for reevaluation of the proposals. [14] Unlike HRS § 103D-710(e), which authorizes this court, on review, to affirm the decision of the hearings officer issued pursuant to section 103D-709 or remand the case with instructions for further proceedings; or ... reverse or modify the decision and order[,] id. (emphasis added), HRS § 103D-709 gives the Hearings Officer jurisdiction to review and determine de novo any request from any... offeror ... aggrieved by a determination of the chief procurement officer [or] head of a purchasing agency[,] and authorizes the Hearings Officers to issue subpoenas, administer oaths, hear testimony, find facts, make conclusions of law, and issue a written decision regarding whether the determinations of the chief procurement officer or the head of the purchasing agency ... were in accordance with the Constitution, statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the solicitation or contract. HRS §§ 103D-709(a),(b) & (f). Presumably because of the obvious need for expeditious review of public contracting decisions, [15] the code simply does not authorize the Hearings Officer to remand to the contracting agency under these circumstances. Instead, the Hearings Officers' written decisions are to be final and conclusive, HRS § 103D-709(b), and any request for judicial review must be filed within ten days of such written decision. HRS § 103D-712(b). Accordingly, we hold that, pursuant to HRS § 103D-709, the Hearings Officer's order remanding the matter to the Library for reevaluation of the proposals was in excess of his statutory authority, and we reverse that portion of the decision. We further hold that, pursuant to HRS § 103D-710, this court has jurisdiction to review the Hearings Officer's decision.