Cross References
Grants and subsidies, see chapter 42F.
Case Notes
As nothing in this chapter expressly precluded judicial review, it does not violate the separation of powers doctrine; judicial review was available in connection with chapter by way of a declaratory action under 632-1. 127 H. 76, 276 P.3d 645 (2012).
Petitioner's right to equal protection under article I, 5 of the Hawaii constitution not violated as nothing in this chapter prohibited judicial review; judicial review was available by way of a declaratory action under 632-1. 127 H. 76, 276 P.3d 645 (2012).
As construed, this chapter was not unconstitutional for violating the doctrine of separation of powers as petitioner contended, because although the department of education, in interpreting and applying provisions of this chapter and in deciding disputes to which it is a party, exercises aspects of the judicial power, its decisions are subject to judicial review under 632-1, the declaratory judgment statute. 127 H. 263, 277 P.3d 988 (2012).
Under the circumstances of the case, the decisions of the administrative officers of the department of education to reject the proposal of petitioner that responded to a request for proposals to provide health and human services under contracts pursuant to this chapter were subject to judicial review; 103F-501, 103F-502(c), and 103F-504 do not prohibit judicial review. 127 H. 263, 277 P.3d 988 (2012).
Where there was an implied legislative intent to create a remedy for a purchasing agency's failure to comply with this chapter, and correlatively, nothing expressly indicating an intent to deny one, there was a private right of action allowed against the State (i.e., the department of education) under 632-1 specifically challenging a decision made under this chapter, as to whether the relevant administrative officers complied with the statutes, rules, and the request for proposals. 127 H. 263, 277 P.3d 988 (2012).
Although 632-1 generally endorses declaratory relief in civil cases, it disallows such relief where a statute provides a special form of remedy for a specific type of case; where this chapter provided for a protest process under 103F-501 through 103F-504, and 103F-504 limited the protestor to an administrative process as the "exclusive means" to resolve contract disputes, declaratory relief under 632-1 was unavailable because 632-1 specifically mandates that the statutory remedy provided in this chapter must be followed. 125 H. 200 (App.), 257 P.3d 213.
As the statutory language of this chapter clearly indicates the intent of the legislature to deny a private right of action, there is no action in tort; because there is no private right of action under this chapter, there is also no cause of action for damages under chapter 662. 125 H. 200 (App.), 257 P.3d 213.
This chapter, which gives the department of education the power to be the final arbiter in contract award protests, did not violate the separation of powers doctrine and was not unconstitutional under article VI, 1 of the state constitution where the legislature, in enacting this chapter, determined that the judiciary had no power to review procurement grievance procedures under this chapter; as every enactment of the legislature is presumptively constitutional, a party challenging the statute has the burden of showing unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt; plaintiffs failed to meet that burden. 125 H. 200 (App.), 257 P.3d 213.
Where the legislature did not give the circuit court the power or jurisdiction to review administrative appeals under this chapter, the court did not err when it determined that it did not have the authority to review the department of education's decision and underlying actions under 603-21.9(6). 125 H. 200 (App.), 257 P.3d 213.
Last modified: October 27, 2016