Department of Administration v Kloppenburg Enterprises Inc [2006] GUSC 6; 2006 Guam 06 (30 March 2006)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

FLEET SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION,
GOVERNMENT OF GUAM,
Defendant-Appellee,

and

KLOPPENBURG ENTERPRISES, INC., a Member
and on Behalf of Kloppenburg Enterprises, Inc.,
GUAM SANKO TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
and MICRONESIAN HOSPITALITY, INC.,
a Joint Venture Partnership,
Intervenor-Appellee.

Supreme Court Case No. CVA05-005 (consolidated with CVA05-006)
Superior Court Case Nos. CV1993-03 and CV0337-04

OPINION

Filed: March 30, 2006

Cite as: 2006 Guam 6

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on November 3, 2005
Hagåtña, Guam

For Plaintiff-Appellant Fleet Services: Bill R. Mann, Esq. Berman O’Connor Mann & Shklov Ste. 503, Bank of Guam Bldg. 111 Chalan Santo Papa Hagåtña, GU 96910	For Defendant-Appellee Dept. of Administration: Joseph F. Guthrie, Esq. Deputy Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 287 W. O’Brien Dr. Hagåtña, GU 96910
	For Intervenor-Appellee Kloppenburg Enters. Inc.: Alicia A. Limtiaco, Esq. Limtiaco Cruz & Sison, PLLC 777 Rte. 4 Ste. 11B, MVP Business Ctr.  Sinajana, GU 96910

BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice; MIGUEL S. DEMAPAN, Justice Pro Tempore.

CARBULLIDO, C.J.:

[1] This appeal arises from the procurement for the operation, management and maintenance of the Guam Public Transit System. Defendant-Appellee Department of Administration (“DOA”) issued a Request for Proposal, and responses were submitted by Plaintiff-Appellant Fleet Services, Inc. and a joint venture comprised of Intervenor-Appellee Kloppenburg Enterprises, Inc. (“KEI”), Guam Sanko Transportation and Micronesian Hospitality, Inc.. When DOA announced its intent to award the contract to KEI, Fleet filed two separate protests with DOA. Both protests were rejected and Fleet then filed two separate lawsuits in the Superior Court, based on the two separate protests. Both cases were dismissed for different reasons, and appealed to this court.

[2]