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 solicited bids for a public works project involving the construction of two buildings. Davis, a licensed contractor, submitted the lowest bid for one building, while Midcon submitted the lowest combined bid for both projects. Midcon protested Davis' bid, alleging non-compliance with subcontractor designation requirements. The State rejected Davis' bid and awarded the contract to Midcon, which proceeded with the project (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• District Court, December 19, 1995: Held that the State's rejection of Davis' bid was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Allowed Davis to amend its petition to include claims against the State and Midcon but dismissed Davis' cross-claim against Midcon (paras 7-9).
• Court of Appeals, August 12, 1997: Dismissed Davis' appeal of the partial judgment as it was not a final order (para 9).
• District Court, October 3, 1996: Entered judgment awarding Davis damages against the State for bid preparation costs and again dismissed Davis' cross-claim against Midcon (para 10).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Davis): Argued that Midcon's groundless bid protest led to the rejection of its bid, resulting in unjust enrichment for Midcon. Claimed Midcon should be subject to a constructive trust for profits earned on the project (para 11).
• Appellee (Midcon): Contended that the Procurement Code does not provide a private right of action for damages against a successful bidder. Asserted that its actions, including filing a protest and performing the contract, were lawful and permissible under the Procurement Code (para 12).

Legal Issues

• Does the Procurement Code preclude a disappointed bidder from pursuing a common-law or equitable remedy against a successful bidder for alleged unjust enrichment?
• Did Davis' cross-claim against Midcon sufficiently allege actionable conduct to warrant relief?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Davis' cross-claim against Midcon (para 20).

Reasons

Per Donnelly J. (Bosson and Bustamante JJ. concurring):

• The Procurement Code provides a mechanism for protesting and appealing bid rejections but does not create a private right of action for damages against a successful bidder (para 13).
• Legislative intent behind the Procurement Code prioritizes public benefit over bidder enrichment, and the Code does not preclude common-law claims against third parties in appropriate circumstances (paras 13-16).
• Davis' allegations against Midcon, including filing a protest and performing the awarded contract, did not demonstrate illegality, fraud, or tortious conduct. These actions were permissible under the Procurement Code (paras 17-19).
• The district court correctly dismissed the cross-claim as it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Rule 1-012(B)(6) NMRA 1999 (para 20).