Court Opinion

ID: 9506529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:04:59.409855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:59.340310
License: Public Domain

Opinion by
RECKTENWALD, C.J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which NAKAYAMA, J., Joins.
I concur in the majority’s conclusion that AlohaCare cannot seek review of its Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 103F procurement protest pursuant to HRS chapter 103D. Majority opinion at 653-54. I also concur in the majority’s conclusion that Alo-haCare does not have a property interest in the contract at issue that implicates due process protections. Majority opinion at 658.
However, for the reasons set forth in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Alaka'i Na Keiki, Inc. v. Matayoshi, 127 Hawai'i 263, 277 P.3d 988 (2012) (Reektenwald, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that agency decisions on protests regarding the procurement of health and human services are renewable pursuant to the declaratory judgment statute, HRS § 632-1.1 Majority opinion at 658. Instead, I would hold that the legislature clearly intended to preclude judicial review of these protest decisions under the health and human services procurement code, HRS chapter 103F. I would further hold that preclusion of judicial review does not raise separation of powers concerns in the circumstances presented here. Because the legislature has the power to establish the jurisdiction of the courts, see Haw. Const. art. VI, § 1 (“The several courts shall have original and appellate jurisdiction as provided by law[.]”), the legislature may, with certain limitations described in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Alaka’i, exclude agency decisions from judicial review.
Finally, I note that the majority’s conclusion that protest decisions are reviewable under the declaratory judgment statute undermines this court’s caselaw concerning HRS § 91-14, which generally limits judicial review of administrative agency action to decisions and orders in contested eases, unless review is otherwise provided by law. Additionally, this conclusion will introduce uncertainty into the procurement of health and human services contracts. In order to promote the prompt and final resolution of disputes involving the procurement of those contracts, HRS chapter 103F provides that a protest must be filed within five working days, and a request for reconsideration must be filed within five working days of the written protest decision. HRS §§ 103F-501 and 103F-502. However, under the majority’s approach, procurement decisions will now be subject to challenge much later under the more generous statutes of limitations applicable to declaratory judgment actions.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. Instead, I would affirm the judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals, which af*91firmed the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s January 8, 2009 judgment and order dismissing AlohaCare’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

. I also dissent from the majority’s conclusion that there appears to be no rational basis for precluding judicial review of AlohaCare’s procurement protest. Majority opinion at 658. As explained in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Alaka’i, the legislature intended that the procurement process under HRS chapter 103F be simple and efficient, H. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 940, in 1997 House Journal, at 1461, which provides a rational basis for precluding judicial review in these circumstances.