Am Medical Response Of Inland Empire V County Of San Bernardino

Key Facts

Transaction Type

Issues

• The first issue is whether the trial court correctly concluded that the County had a ministerial duty to advance only the highest-scoring proposal (AMR) to the Board of Supervisors under the EMS Act and RFP. The appellate court held that the EMS Act grants local agencies discretion to develop competitive processes and select providers, making the decision quasi-legislative rather than ministerial. The RFP's language also allowed for flexibility, including advancing multiple proposals and defining 'highest score' subjectively.
• The third issue is whether the trial court's preliminary injunction was appropriate after finding the County had a ministerial duty. The appellate court reversed this, stating the injunction cannot be granted if there's no likelihood of prevailing on the merits. The court emphasized the general rule against enjoining public agencies and concluded AMR's injury risk did not outweigh the County's discretion to proceed with the contract.
• The second issue is whether the County's decision to advance both AMR's and ConFire's proposals and ultimately select ConFire constituted an abuse of discretion. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion, noting the RFP did not define 'highest score' and three evaluators scored ConFire higher. The County's procurement policies and the Board's public hearing process supported its decision as consistent with the RFP's goals of best value and efficiency.

Holdings

• The court held that the County did not abuse its discretion by advancing both AMR's and ConFire's proposals to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. The RFP allowed for negotiations with multiple proposers, and the County's selection of ConFire was consistent with the RFP's goals and procurement policies.
• The court concluded that the balance of harms did not support the preliminary injunction because AMR failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on its claims. Public policy considerations against enjoining public agencies further undermined the injunction's justification.
• The court reversed the trial court's order granting the preliminary injunction, determining that the County's decision to award the EMS contract to ConFire was not ministerial but discretionary under the EMS Act and the RFP. The trial court erred by imposing a ministerial duty and substituting its judgment for the County's discretion.

Remedies

• The order is reversed. On remand, the trial court is directed to enter an order denying AMR's motion for a preliminary injunction and to reconsider the amount of the undertaking it imposed on AMR in light of this court's decision.
• Costs of appeal are awarded to appellants County of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors, Inland Counties Emergency Medical Agency, and Consolidated Fire Agencies.

Legal Principles

• The court applied a highly deferential standard of review to quasi-legislative decisions, finding the County did not abuse its discretion by advancing both proposals to the Board. The trial court erred by substituting its judgment for the County's, as the EMS Act and RFP granted discretion to the local agency in selecting EMS providers based on best value and needs.
• The appellate court reversed the preliminary injunction, holding the trial court improperly granted it without sufficient likelihood of success. The injunction's issuance was based on the trial court's mistaken belief the County had a ministerial duty to follow RFP scoring strictly, which was legally unfounded.

Precedent Name

• City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising
• Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors
• Carrancho v. California Air Resources Board
• Parker v. Brown
• Weinstein v. County of Los Angeles
• Mike Moore's 24-Hour Towing v. City of San Diego
• American Medical Response of Inland Empire v. County of San Bernardino
• HNHPC, Inc. v. Department of Cannabis Control

Key Disputed Contract Clauses

• Subsection 2.13 of the RFP explicitly stated the County 'may require the potential Proposer(s) selected to participate in negotiations,' using plural language to allow multiple proposers. The trial court interpreted this as requiring negotiation only with the highest scorer (AMR), but the appellate court held the RFP's wording permitted negotiations with both AMR and ConFire, particularly since three of four evaluators scored ConFire higher and the Board ultimately decided based on 'best value' criteria.
• The RFP (Section II.2.1) stated the County would award the contract to the proposer with the highest score who conforms to the RFP and 'best meets the needs of the County.' AMR argued this mandated selecting the highest total scorer (AMR), while the County claimed it allowed discretion to select the provider offering 'greatest value' even with 'substantially equivalent scores.' The appellate court found the RFP's language granted flexibility, as it did not define 'highest score' and permitted negotiations with multiple proposers.

Cited Statute

Judge Name

• McConnell, P.J.
• Rubin, J.
• Irion, J.

Passage Text

• The trial court improperly 'substitute[d] its judgment for that of the agency' by ruling the County abused its discretion. The court found the County's decision to advance both proposals was consistent with the RFP and procurement manual, and the Board's public hearing selection of ConFire based on factors like supplemental funding eligibility and faster response times supported the decision.
• The trial court's conclusion that the RFP imposed a ministerial duty on the County to negotiate solely with the proposer who received the highest total score was error. The RFP's plain language provides that the County may negotiate with more than one proposer and that the final determination is left to the discretion of the Board based on the scoring and the Board's determination of the proposer's ability to meet the needs of the County and provide the best value.
• The Ninth Circuit concluded the County had not disregarded the competitive process set forth in the RFP. The court stated that even if AMR had the 'highest score,' the plain language of the state-approved RFP gave the County Defendants discretion to award the monopoly to the provider whose proposal presented 'the greatest value' to the County.

Damages / Relief Type

• The preliminary injunction was reversed; trial court directed to deny AMR's motion for a preliminary injunction and reconsider the undertaking amount of $200,220.
• Costs of appeal awarded to appellants (County of San Bernardino, Board of Supervisors, Inland Counties Emergency Medical Agency, and Consolidated Fire Agencies).