In Pennsylvania Institutional Health Services, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Department of Corrections (DOC), 168 Pa. Commw. 135, 649 A.2d 190 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994), an inmate at one of the State Institutions died from dehydration and, as a result, the PIHS was notified that it was suspended from contracting with the DOC. PIHS was later notified that the DOC was considering whether to debar PIHS from contracting with the Commonwealth because it was allegedly "engaging in acts or omissions to act which substantially contributed to the death of" the inmate. PIHS filed a petition for review requesting injunctive relief to which the DOC filed preliminary objections. The Court overruled DOC's preliminary objections and ordered it to respond to the petition for review. The DOC then filed a motion for summary judgment. One of the issues in the motion was whether Management Directive 215.9 should have been promulgated as a regulation in accordance with the Commonwealth Documents Law. In PIHS' petition, it pled that DOC had not promulgated any rules or regulations relating to the suspension or debarment and had no rules or procedures governing administrative challenges to its procurement-related decisions such as debarment and suspension. Because DOC had not, in fact, promulgated any regulations and determined that the Management Directive was not a disguised regulation, "but instead a valid exercise of the Governor's power and responsibility with respect to executive agency professional services contracts," the Court denied PIHS' application for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint and transferred the matter to the appropriate administrative forum for further proceedings.