California Court of Appeal

In a dispute arising from an agency's solicitation of proposals for photocopiers and related services, denial of a petition for a peremptory writ of mandate directing defendant-agency to accept petitioner's protest, or for a declaration that an award of a contract to Sharp was void, is affirmed over claims that: 1) the trial court should have ignored defendant's answers to the petition because they were untimely; 2) plaintiff strictly complied with the regulations governing a bid protest, under a "reasonable" reading; 3) alternatively, it substantially complied with the regulations; 4) it was excused from the need to exhaust the administrative protest remedy by the doctrine of futility, and by ways in which administrative procedures violated due process; and 5) it had a remedy in its capacity as a taxpayer to challenge an award of a contract as invalid under Code of Civ. Proc. section 526a.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/05/2007
• Published 05/07/2007

Judges

• DAVIS, Acting P.J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Law Offices of Paul F. Dauer and Paul F. Dauer, Sacramento, for Plaintiff and Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Christopher E. Krueger, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Van Aken and Geoffrey L. Graybill, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent., Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin, Denis T. Rice and Michael L. Gallo, San Francisco, for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.