Haw. Rev. Stat. § 103D-701
If the protest of a construction contract or airport contract that is awarded pursuant to section 103D-302 or 103D-303 is not resolved by mutual agreement, the chief procurement officer or a designee shall issue a written decision to uphold or deny the protest within seventy-five calendar days of receipt of the protest; provided that the chief procurement officer or a designee may grant an extension based on written justification of the extenuating circumstances; provided further that the extension shall not exceed forty-five calendar days.
HRS § 103D-701
Procurement statistics on protests (repealed July 1, 2011). L 2009, c 175, §7.
A "substantial interest determination" pursuant to subsection (f) must specifically identify the state interests involved and articulate why it is necessary for the protection of those interests that the contract be awarded without delay.85 Haw. 431,946 P.2d 1. Award and performance of library automation services contract violated subsection (f) where award of contract without delay was not necessary to protect any substantial state interest.85 Haw. 431,946 P.2d 1. Chief procurement officer authorized under §§ 103D-203 and 103D-204 (pre-1997) to make substantial interest determination under subsection (f) for public library system was superintendent of education and not administrator of state procurement office.85 Haw. 431,946 P.2d 1. Substantial interest determination improper and did not satisfy subsection (f) to the extent determination was based on assessment of merits of unsuccessful bidder's protest.85 Haw. 431,946 P.2d 1. Where the evaluation process is so fundamentally flawed that determination of who should have been awarded the contract was not, and cannot be, made, and the contract has already been awarded in bad faith and in violation of subsection (f), a successful protester who was not awarded the contract is entitled to recover bid preparation costs under subsection (g).85 Haw. 431,946 P.2d 1. Where timely protest made by unsuccessful bidder, award and execution of contract by agency head with successful bidder without substantial interest determination by chief procurement officer was violation of subsection (f) and in bad faith.85 Haw. 431,946 P.2d 1. Where plaintiffs had no standing, as a labor union and subcontractor, to invoke the provisions of this code because they were neither contractors nor bidders for the contract in question, and neither this code nor chapter 444 authorized the circuit court to grant the remedies plaintiffs sought, and the court was presented with no other basis for granting the requested relief, the court correctly dismissed the suit.121 Haw. 182 (App.),216 P.3d 108. 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.