The Superior Court of Guam has denied a motion to dismiss the complaint brought forth by JMI-Edison, a company seeking court review for the procurement of a baggage handling system at the airport.
The company filed its complaint against the Office of Public Accountability, the Guam International Airport Authority and Menzies Aviation after the OPA dismissed its procurement appeal in February.
JMI and Menzies were vying to become the contractor for the baggage project. The airport ultimately chose Menzies. JMI protested that decision and later appealed its case at the OPA.
However, the OPA dismissed the appeal, a decision that implicated Cecil “Buddy” Orsini, the former executive director of the Guam Contractors License Board.
Orsini reportedly acted to help JMI by doing as the company requested, issuing a document determining that Menzies required a contractors license to perform the scope of work for the baggage project, and doing so without the concurrence of his board, according to the OPA.
Orsini resigned shortly after the release of the OPA decision, at Adelup’s request.
The OPA is now conducting a performance audit of licensing and investigation procedures at the CLB, from 2017 through 2021. This was brought on by a tip following the release of the appeal decision.
For its part, JMI stated that the OPA was manipulated into believing wrongdoing had occurred. Company President Ed Ilao stated that their lawyers were never provided the opportunity to correct the record.
JMI wasted little time and took the matter to court in February.
The company stated in its complaint that the OPA’s dismissal was improper, in that it was arbitrary, capricious, erroneous, and contrary to law by being issued without notice and giving the company a meaningful opportunity to respond.
“The OPA, in issuing its sanction, incorrectly and impulsively mischaracterized prior testimony from CLB personnel in other OPA matters, and mistakenly recounted CLB investigator Nida Bailey had acknowledged that it is the CLB board which is to decide issues related to the existence or nonexistence of a contractor license, or the statutory need for such a license, and that she had confirmed that no board meeting had taken place regarding the issues,” the JMI complaint stated.
This was in addition to other claims related to the completeness of GIAA’s procurement record and the OPA’s alleged failure to find that Menzies is an improper offeror for the baggage project.
The OPA and GIAA submitted motions to dismiss JMI’s complaint, arguing among other things, that JMI had not exhausted its administrative remedies and that there is no action for an appeal against the OPA under the local procurement law. Menzies joined GIAA’s motion to dismiss.
But the court did not agree with either GIAA or the OPA. It rejected the OPA’s motion in July, while denial of GIAA’s motion came much later, on Sept. 22. The court stated, in part, that the case became “ripe” for review after going through the administrative procurement process.
A scheduling notice filed on Sept. 23 states that a scheduling conference on the case is to be held on Oct. 26.
