AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The State of New Mexico's Department of Health (DOH), in collaboration with the General Services Department's Property Control Division (PCD), issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for leased office space. Renaissance Office, LLC submitted a proposal for a build-to-suit, twenty-year lease with a $1 purchase option at the end of the lease. DOH selected Renaissance as the top-ranked offeror, and Renaissance incurred significant costs preparing lease record drawings and a lease agreement. However, PCD later raised concerns about the legality of the purchase option and ultimately canceled the RFP, citing non-compliance with procurement rules (paras 2-14).

Procedural History

• District Court, Santa Fe County: The district court found that PCD acted arbitrarily and contrary to law in canceling the RFP and held that Renaissance was entitled to relief under Section 13-1-182 of the Procurement Code (paras 15-16).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (State of New Mexico, General Services Department): Argued that no valid, written contract existed because the PCD Director did not sign the lease, and therefore, the State was immune from liability under Section 37-1-23(A). It contended that the "award of a contract" under Section 13-1-182 required a signed lease agreement and that the district court's interpretation improperly contravened the State's immunity (paras 31-33).
• Appellees (Renaissance Office, LLC and Michael Branch): Asserted that the "award of a contract" occurred when they were selected as the top-ranked offeror and received the notice of award. They argued that the RFP process and their reliance on the award entitled them to relief under Section 13-1-182, even without a signed lease. They also claimed that the State's actions were arbitrary and contrary to the Procurement Code (paras 34-36).

Legal Issues

• Whether the "award of a contract" under Section 13-1-182 of the Procurement Code occurred when Renaissance was selected as the top-ranked offeror and received the notice of award.
• Whether the State's immunity under Section 37-1-23(A) barred relief under Section 13-1-182.
• Whether PCD acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law in canceling the RFP (paras 16, 31-36).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Renaissance was entitled to relief under Section 13-1-182 and that the State's immunity under Section 37-1-23(A) did not apply (para 45).

Reasons

Per Sutin J. (Bustamante and Robinson JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that the "award of a contract" under Section 13-1-182 occurred when Renaissance was selected as the top-ranked offeror and received the notice of award. The RFP process involved a series of steps, and the notice of award constituted a significant milestone in the award process (paras 38-40).
• The Court rejected the State's argument that the "award of a contract" required a signed lease agreement. It found that the Procurement Code's purpose was to ensure fair treatment of offerors and to provide remedies for losses incurred due to the State's actions (paras 38-40).
• The Court determined that Section 37-1-23(A), which grants immunity to the State from actions based on contract unless there is a valid, written contract, did not bar relief under Section 13-1-182. The action was statutory, not contractual, and Section 13-1-182 provided a specific remedy for offerors in cases where an award was later determined to be in violation of law (paras 41-42).
• The Court emphasized that PCD should have identified any legal issues with Renaissance's proposal before issuing the notice of award. By failing to do so and later canceling the RFP, PCD acted arbitrarily and contrary to the Procurement Code (paras 39-40, 45).