ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT