Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 103D-704 (2026)

Exclusivity of remedies

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§103D-704 Exclusivity of remedies. The procedures and remedies provided for in this part, and the rules adopted by the policy board, shall be the exclusive means available for persons aggrieved in connection with the solicitation or award of a contract, a suspension or debarment proceeding, or in connection with a contract controversy, to resolve their claims or differences. The contested case proceedings set out in chapter 91 shall not apply to protested solicitations and awards, debarments or suspensions, or the resolution of contract controversies. [L Sp 1993, c 8, pt of §2; am L 1997, c 352, §23]

Case Notes

Procurement code was not relevant to employer's claim for breach of duty of loyalty. 338 F.3d 1082.

A protester is entitled to recover attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting its protest if the protester has proven the solicitation was in violation of this code, the contract was awarded in violation of §103D-701(f), and award of contract was in bad faith. 85 H. 431, 946 P.2d 1.

This section, the "exclusive remedy" provision of chapter 103D, the public procurement code, barred plaintiff, a sub-consultant, from bringing a lawsuit against the defendant city seeking damages sounding in tort for injury suffered as a result of the city's alleged violations of the code; plaintiff was on notice under the code that it could not, in its own right, bring a direct challenge to the procurement process in the event it disputed the actions of the procurement agency; the legislative scheme encompassed the notion that challenges would be brought by the primary parties in the process--the contractor or prospective bidder or offeror. 121 H. 527 (App.), 221 P.3d 505.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2009–2016 · leading case: Alii Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Prof'l Sec. Consultants, 383 P.3d 104 (Haw. App. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Alii Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Prof'l Sec. Consultants, 383 P.3d 104 (Haw. App. 2016). · cites it 7× “10 PSC contended that Count I “failfed] to allege fact [sic] sufficient to establish two of the necessary elements of the claim for tortious interference with contractual relations],” and that both Counts I and II are barred by the exclusivity provisions of HRS § 103D-704 (2012…”

Commc'ns-Pac., Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 221 P.3d 505 (Haw. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “On June 27, 2006, the circuit court dismissed the City’s motion for fees and costs and amended its April 13,2006 *530 Order by clarifying that it was dismissing both Comm-Pae’s complaint and Comm-Pac’s motion for partial summary judgment (Amended Order).”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.