Reported / Citable
Background
For roughly four decades, American Medical Response of Inland Empire (AMR) was the exclusive provider of emergency medical services (EMS) and ambulance transport in San Bernardino County, grandfathered in under California’s EMS Act. In 2022 the County issued a request for proposals (RFP) for a new exclusive contract, articulating three goals: improving service, building a more efficient system, and reinvesting in the system.
Two bidders responded — incumbent AMR and Consolidated Fire Agencies (ConFire), a joint-powers authority of local fire departments. After an evaluation process in which both proposals were scored, the County’s Board of Supervisors selected ConFire. AMR scored higher on certain technical metrics but the Board concluded ConFire’s proposal better matched the County’s overall procurement goals.
AMR sued first in federal court (those federal antitrust claims were dismissed under Parker immunity), then re-filed in San Bernardino Superior Court seeking a writ of mandate and an injunction. The trial court agreed with AMR that the County had a ministerial duty to advance only the highest-scoring proposal and entered a preliminary injunction blocking the ConFire contract. The County and ConFire appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed and ordered the trial court to deny the injunction. The court held that nothing in the EMS Act or the RFP imposed a ministerial duty to advance only the bidder with the highest evaluation score. The RFP described scoring as one input into a holistic decision-making process and reserved discretion for the County to weigh how each proposal advanced the County’s procurement objectives.
Because the underlying agency action was discretionary, AMR could prevail only by showing the County abused its discretion. The court found AMR had no reasonable likelihood of doing so. The Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence that ConFire’s bid offered greater long-term reinvestment and integration with existing fire-rescue infrastructure — factors plainly within the RFP’s stated goals.
Without a likelihood of success on the merits, AMR could not satisfy the preliminary-injunction standard. The court remanded with directions to deny the injunction motion and to reconsider the amount of the undertaking the trial court had imposed.
Key Takeaways
- A ‘highest score wins’ rule cannot be inferred from a competitive RFP unless the procurement documents and the controlling statute clearly say so. Public agencies retain wide discretion to balance scoring against stated procurement goals.
- Disappointed bidders seeking to overturn a public contract award face a steep burden — they must show abuse of discretion, not just that they scored well.
- Trial courts cannot convert a discretionary procurement decision into a ministerial duty by reweighing the agency’s scoring criteria.
- The EMS Act preserves significant local-agency latitude in selecting exclusive ambulance providers, so even longstanding ‘grandfathered’ incumbents like AMR can be displaced after a competitive process.
- Preliminary injunctions blocking public-contract awards require both a likelihood of success and a careful look at the public interest; a weak merits showing dooms the request.
Why It Matters
This decision has immediate operational importance for California cities, counties, and special districts that procure essential services through competitive RFPs. It confirms that public agencies can structure scoring as one input among many and need not bind themselves to award contracts to whichever bidder racks up the most points. Procurement counsel should ensure RFPs clearly preserve agency discretion and articulate qualitative procurement goals; courts will read those documents the way they are written.
For incumbent contractors, the message is that long tenure and high technical scores are not enough to defeat a competitor whose bid better aligns with the agency’s stated public-interest objectives. Companies considering preliminary-injunction challenges to public-contract awards should plan for the heightened evidentiary burden the case confirms.