PURCHASES OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Part I. General Provisions
103F-101 Application of this chapter
103F-103 Education and training
103F-104 Exemption from chapter 103D
103F-105 Preventing impairment of federal funds
103F-106 Authority of the procurement policy board
103F-107 Medicaid contracts; nonprofits and for-profits;
Part II. Planning Organization
103F-201 Interagency committee on purchase of health and
103F-202 Community council
103F-203 Participation of providers
Part III. Procurement Organization
103F-301 Powers and duties of the administrator
103F-302 Delegation of authority of the administrator of
the state procurement office
Part IV. Source Selection and Contract Formation
103F-401 Methods of selection
103F-401.5 Proposals and awards
103F-402 Competitive purchase of services
103F-403 Restrictive purchase of services
103F-404 Treatment purchase of services
103F-405 Small purchases
103F-406 Crisis purchase of services
103F-407 Amendment and cancellation of requests
103F-408 Modification and termination of contracts
103F-409 Types of contracts
103F-410 Multi-term contracts
103F-411 Multiple awards
103F-412 Time line
103F-413 Interim measure for assuring continuation of
Part V. Protests
103F-501 Protested awards
103F-502 Right to request reconsideration
103F-503 Award of contract suspended during a protest
103F-504 Exclusivity of remedies
Grants and subsidies, see chapter 42F.
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.