Imagistics International, Inc. v. Department of General Services

Following the rejection of its protest to the award of a public contract to real party in interest Sharp Electronics Corp. (Sharp), plaintiff Imagistics International, Inc. (Imagistics), filed the present petition for a peremptory writ of mandate directing defendant Department of General Services (DGS) to accept its protest, or for a declaration that the award of the contract to Sharp was void. In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court first found that the standard of strict compliance was appropriate for the procedures for filing a protest, which plaintiff Imagistics had not satisfied. In its subsequent order, it did not find any basis for excusing plaintiff Imagistics from exhausting this administrative remedy.

Plaintiff Imagistics promptly appealed. It renews its arguments here, as well as invoking new ones for the first time. 2 We shall affirm.

Background

In March 2005, defendant DGS solicited proposals for the purchase of photocopiers and related support services. The value of the contract approximated $37.5 million. -

The bidding process had two phases. The first solicited responses to technical and administrative specifications of the proposal. Bidders that…

Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin, Denis T. Rice and Michael L. Gallo, San Francisco, for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

DAVIS, Acting P.J.

Following the rejection of its protest to the award of a public contract to real party in interest Sharp Electronics Corp. (Sharp), plaintiff Imagistics International, Inc. (Imagistics) filed the present petition for a peremptory writ of mandate directing defendant DGS to accept its protest, or for a declaration that the award of the contract to Sharp was void. In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court first found that the standard of strict compliance was appropriate for the procedures for filing a protest, which plaintiff Imagistics had not satisfied. In its subsequent order, it did not find any basis for excusing plaintiff Imagistics from exhausting this administrative remedy.

Plaintiff Imagistics promptly appealed. It renews its arguments here, as well as invoking new ones for the first time. [2] We shall affirm.

In March 2005, defendant DGS solicited proposals for the purchase of photocopiers and related support services. The value of the contract approximated $37.5 million.

The bidding process had two phases. The…

I concur in Justice Davis’s opinion. I write separately to comment that this case shows why every lawyer in California should have a sign posted in his or her office which says “Never do anything on the last day or at the last moment.'’'’ Plaintiff’s machinations in this lawsuit and the convoluted legal and constitutional arguments advanced were only necessary because plaintiff’s attorney waited to file a bid protest until five minutes before the deadline and failed to include a check for the required fees in the filing, an easy mistake to make but one easily correctable if the filing was not made at the last moment.

On May 4, 2007, the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied July 11, 2007, S152676.