COA: Competitor can't challenge state contract for services

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A mental health services provider doesn’t have standing to challenge a nonprofit competitor’s subcontract for similar services with the Indiana Department of Administration, the state’s second highest appellate court has ruled.

In Midwest Psychological Center, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of Administration, et al., No. 49A02-1103-MI-213, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling from Marion Superior Judge Cynthia Ayers regarding a contract with the state Department of Administration.

The state hired a company named Corizon to provide mental health services and that company has a subcontract for some of those services with Indiana Minority Health Coalition, a nonprofit organization that is certified by the state as a minority business enterprise (MBE). But Midwest Psychological Center Inc., the only for-profit MBE mental health provider in Indiana that provides the same services as Minority Health, objected to the contract and filed a grievance that alleged Minority Health wasn’t eligible to be certified as a MBE. Midwest filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment on various points: that Minority Health isn’t a MBE; that defendant Tony Kirkland has a conflict of interest by serving both on Minority Health’s governing board and as the commissioner overseeing IDOA’s decertification process; enjoining Minority Health from providing mental health services under its subcontract; and enjoining the state from contracting with Corizon because of its subcontract with Minority Health.

The trial court found Midwest lacked standing and granted motions for judgment on the pleadings in favor of the state and Minority Health. On appeal, the three-judge appellate panel found that Midwest isn’t an “aggrieved party” under Indiana Code 5-22-19-2 and, as a result, doesn’t have standing to challenge either the subcontract or the underlying contract.

Midwest argued that it has standing as an aggrieved party under the Public Purchasing Act outlined in IC 5-22. It argued that it’s the only for-profit that is certified as a MBE to provide those mental health services and if Minority Health was decertified, Corizon would have to subcontract with Midwest.

The appellate court disagreed, finding that generally an unsuccessful bidder doesn’t have standing to challenge the award of a government contract under the Public Purchasing Act. The court didn’t address Midwest’s arguments regarding primary jurisdiction because the case was resolved on on the other points.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.