This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A Texas-based company, BC&L Pavement Services, Inc., submitted the lowest bid for a New Mexico state contract to provide materials and labor for airport pavement treatments. However, BC&L was not licensed in New Mexico at the time of bidding but obtained a license before the contract was finalized. The State Purchasing Agent rejected BC&L's bid, citing the lack of licensure at the time of bidding, and awarded the contract to another company, Dismuke Construction Company (paras 1, 4-7).
Procedural History
- State Purchasing Agent, June 6, 2000: Rejected BC&L's protest, affirming that BC&L's bid was invalid due to the lack of a New Mexico contractor's license at the time of bidding (paras 8-9).
- District Court of Santa Fe County, (N/A): Affirmed the State Purchasing Agent's decision, ruling that BC&L violated the statutory requirement to be licensed at the time of bidding and that the doctrine of substantial compliance did not apply (para 10).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Petitioner (BC&L Pavement Services, Inc.): Argued that it substantially complied with the licensing requirement by obtaining a license before the contract was finalized. It also contended that the licensing requirement was not explicitly stated in the invitation for bids and that the State Purchasing Agent failed to follow proper procedures, violating due process (paras 8, 10, 11, 25, 35-39).
- Defendant-Respondent (State Purchasing Agent): Asserted that the statutory requirement for licensure at the time of bidding was clear and mandatory, and that BC&L's failure to meet this requirement invalidated its bid. The State also argued that procedural errors, if any, were harmless and did not prejudice BC&L (paras 9, 18, 38).
Legal Issues
- Does the doctrine of substantial compliance apply to the statutory requirement that bidders be licensed at the time of bidding?
- Was the licensing requirement implicitly incorporated into the invitation for bids, even if not explicitly stated?
- Did the State Purchasing Agent violate procedural requirements or due process in rejecting BC&L's bid?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that BC&L's bid was invalid due to non-compliance with the licensing requirement and rejecting its procedural and due process claims (para 41).
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Pickard and Robinson JJ. concurring):
Substantial Compliance: The Court held that the doctrine of substantial compliance does not apply to the statutory requirement under Section 60-13-12(B) that bidders must be licensed at the time of bidding. The legislature's intent was to ensure that public contracts are awarded only to licensed contractors to protect the public and streamline the procurement process. BC&L's lack of licensure at the time of bidding rendered its bid invalid, regardless of its subsequent licensure (paras 11-24).
Licensing Requirement in Invitation for Bids: The Court found that the licensing requirement was incorporated into the invitation for bids as a matter of law, even if not explicitly stated. The statutory requirement under Section 60-13-12(B) is mandatory and cannot be waived or omitted by the public body issuing the bid (paras 25-34).
Procedural Issues: The Court acknowledged that the State Purchasing Agent failed to provide written notice of the bid rejection as required by regulations but deemed this error harmless since BC&L received oral notice and filed a timely protest. The Court also rejected BC&L's claim that it was denied a hearing, noting that BC&L did not request one and that the regulations allowed hearings only at the discretion of the State Purchasing Agent (paras 35-40).