 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Psenak Construction v. State11/16/2005
inguish between evidence that was available and could have been presented by it at the administrative hearing, and evidence that only became available after the hearing. It did not claim that the reprocurement contract was not performed according to terms and specifications that were established in the initial reprocurement contract documents. Indeed, it states in its brief before this court that the reprocurement contract itself demonstrated the material variance it claims. Psenak's brief states:
Here the reprocurement contract varies materially from the JPC contract in terms of the tolerances for finished grades. ADNR specifically revised the completion contract's finish grade specification so as to render a significant percentage of JPC's completed work, which was compliant with the finished grade tolerance for JPC's contract, non-compliant for purposes of the reprocurement contract. (Emphasis added.)
Psenak's request to supplement the record with evidence of the performance of the reprocurement contract is somewhat analogous to a motion under Civil Rule 60(b)(2) to set aside a judgment based on newly discovered evidence. To justify relief based on newly discovered evidence the moving party must meet a number of standards including (1) that the evidence must be such as would probably change the result and (2) "must not be merely cumulative." Similarly, we have observed in the context of an administrative review that a superior court's refusal to supplement the record will be regarded as "harmless if the excluded material would not have changed the outcome of the dispute on appeal." Because Psenak did not show that the evidence concerning the performance of the reprocurement contract was materially different from the terms and specifications of the reprocurement contract that were available at the time of the administrative hearing, he has failed to satisfy either the requirement that the evidence would probably have changed the result or the requirement that the evidence must be more than merely cumulative. We conclude therefore that the superior court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Psenak's motion to supplement the record and to conduct an evidentiary hearing. For these reasons the judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Alaska Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|