INTERNATIONAL DISPLAY SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant-Appellant, vs. MICHAEL FORMBY, INTERIM DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF HAWAI`I; BRIAN SEKIGUCHI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AIRPORTS DIVISION; DESIGNEES OF AARON FUJIOKA, ADMINISTRATOR, STATE PROCUREMENT OFFICE, STATE OF HAWAII; FORD AUDIO-VIDEO SYSTEMS, INC.; DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & CONSUMER AFFAIRS; Appellees-Appellees, JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10; AND DOE ENTITIES 1-10, Appellees.
Attorney(s) for Appellant-Appellant
Terry E. Thomason, Corianne W. Lau and Shannon M.T. Lau (Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing)
Attorney(s) for Appellees-Appellees
Michael Formby and Designees of Aaron Fujioka Honorable David M Louie, Attorney General and Stella M.L. Kam and Donna H. Kalama, Deputies Attorney General
COURT: Nakamura, CJ; Foley, and Fujise, JJ.
SPECIAL NOTE: The above argument will take place in the Supreme Court courtroom on the Second Floor of Aliiolani Hale, 417 South King Street, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Appellant-Appellant International Display Systems, Inc. (IDS) submitted a proposal to the State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation (DOT) regarding a contract to provide new passenger information systems for the Kahului Airport (the Project). The contract for the Project was awarded to another company. IDS filed with the DOT a protest of the contract award to the other company, which the DOT denied. IDS then filed an administrative appeal with the Office of Administrative Hearings, requesting an administrative hearing on its protest. In the meantime, DOT cancelled the Project and terminated the contract with the other company. The Hearings Officer dismissed IDS's request for an administrative hearing. IDS appealed this decision to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court), which affirmed the dismissal of IDS's request for an administrative hearing.
On appeal to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, IDS argues that the Circuit Court erred in ruling that: (1) the termination of the contract for the Project moots IDS's appeal from the Hearing Officer's decision; and (2) remand for determination of IDS's protest on the merits is inconsistent with the purposes of the Hawaii Public Procurement Code, Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 103D.