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 Plaintiff, a construction company, protested the award of a highway construction contract to another bidder, alleging that the winning bid was unsigned and therefore invalid. The Defendant, a state transportation department, argued that the protest was untimely and that the lack of a signature was a technical irregularity that could be waived. The Plaintiff contended it only became aware of the unsigned bid during a protest hearing for another bidder (paras 1-6).
Procedural History
- District Court of Santa Fe County, January 2001: The court affirmed the Defendant's decision, holding that the Plaintiff's protest was untimely and did not address the issue of the unsigned bid (paras 1, 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff: Argued that its protest was timely because the fifteen-day period to file a protest should begin from the date of actual knowledge of the unsigned bid, not the date the bids were opened. It also contended that the unsigned bid was a fatal defect that could not be waived (paras 6, 9).
- Defendant: Asserted that the protest was untimely because the Plaintiff had constructive knowledge of the unsigned bid when the bids were opened for public inspection. It also argued that the lack of a signature was a technical irregularity that could be waived under the circumstances (paras 4-5, 12).
Legal Issues
- Was the Plaintiff's protest of the contract award untimely under the applicable procurement regulations?
- Could the lack of a signature on the winning bid be waived as a technical irregularity?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Plaintiff's protest was untimely and declining to address the issue of the unsigned bid (paras 1, 15).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Wechsler CJ. and Robinson J. concurring):
The Court held that the Plaintiff's protest was untimely because the fifteen-day period to file a protest began when the Plaintiff had constructive knowledge of the unsigned bid. Constructive knowledge was deemed to arise when the bids were opened and made available for public inspection, as the Plaintiff could have discovered the defect through reasonable diligence. The Court rejected the Plaintiff's argument that the period should begin from the date of actual knowledge, emphasizing the importance of resolving procurement disputes promptly to protect public funds and ensure fairness in the bidding process (paras 11-14).
The Court did not address the issue of whether the lack of a signature on the winning bid could be waived, as the untimeliness of the protest was dispositive (para 1).