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 Carlsbad Municipal Schools Board of Education (the Board) invited bids for a roofing project involving five buildings. The Plaintiff, a roofing company, submitted bids for several items but not for the entire project. The Board awarded the contract to the Plaintiff. Another bidder protested, claiming the Plaintiff's bid was non-responsive. A court later ruled the award to the Plaintiff was unlawful, and the Board awarded the contract to the protesting bidder. The Plaintiff sought compensation for expenses and profit incurred under the terminated contract (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, February 10, 1994: The Board rejected the protest by the competing bidder, upholding the award to the Plaintiff (para 2).
- District Court, (Judge R.W. Gallini): Ruled that the award to the Plaintiff was unlawful and instructed the Board to award the contract to the protesting bidder (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Plaintiff): Argued that under Section 13-1-182(B) of the New Mexico Procurement Code, it was entitled to compensation for actual expenses and reasonable profit incurred under the terminated contract, as it had not acted fraudulently or in bad faith (paras 1, 3).
- Appellee (Defendant): Contended that Section 13-1-182(B) did not apply because the determination that the contract was unlawful was made by a court, not the Board's central purchasing office, and argued that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust its remedies by not appealing the prior court decision (paras 4, 13).
Legal Issues
- Does Section 13-1-182(B) of the New Mexico Procurement Code require compensation to a contractor when a court, rather than the central purchasing office, determines that a contract award was unlawful?
- Did the Plaintiff fail to exhaust its remedies by not appealing the prior court decision?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Board and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 14).
Reasons
Per Harris L. Hartz, Chief Judge (Thomas A. Donnelly and Lynn Pickard, JJ., concurring):
- The Court held that Section 13-1-182(B) applies when a court determines that a contract award was unlawful, as judicial review effectively requires the central purchasing office to make a revised determination that the award was invalid. The absence of an explicit order for a revised determination does not alter the legal consequences of the court's ruling (paras 6-10).
- The Court rejected the Board's argument that the Plaintiff's claim was inconsistent with the Procurement Code's purpose, noting that the Plaintiff was pursuing a remedy explicitly provided by the Code. The Court emphasized that the Code should be liberally construed to ensure fairness and efficiency (paras 11-12).
- The Court dismissed the Board's argument that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust its remedies, clarifying that the Plaintiff was not challenging the prior court decision but seeking relief consistent with it (para 13).