Any bidder or offeror who is aggrieved in connection with a solicitation or award of a contract may protest to the state purchasing agent or a central purchasing office. The protest shall be submitted in writing within fifteen calendar days after knowledge of the facts or occurrences giving rise to the protest.
History: Laws 1984, ch. 65, § 145; 1987, ch. 348, § 19.
ANNOTATIONSAppellate review of administrative protest. — A protest of the award of a contract for a campus electrical distribution upgrade project complied with the process outlined in the Procurement Code to protest a decision by protesting to the state purchasing agent or a central purchasing office (§ 13-1-172), who were given authority to resolve protests pursuant to § 13-1-174, and therefore constituted an administrative tribunal whose decision was appealable, as provided by § 13-1-183, pursuant to the provisions of § 39-3-1.1. State ex rel. ENMU Regents v. Baca, 2008-NMSC-047, 144 N.M. 530, 189 P.3d 663.
Adequate legal remedy. — The Procurement Code provides an adequate legal remedy to disappointed bidders by giving them the right to protest pursuant to § 13-1-172 and the statutory remedy of judicial review pursuant to § 13-1-183. State ex rel. Educ. Assessments Sys., Inc. v. Coop. Educ. Servs. of N.M., 1993-NMCA-024, 115 N.M. 196, 848 P.2d 1123.
An important goal of the Procurement Code is that protests are to be made and resolved quickly and in furtherance of protecting the public fisc and of assuring the fairness of the procurement process. James Hamilton Constr. Co. v. State ex rel. State Highway & Transp. Dep't, 2003-NMCA-067, 133 N.M. 627, 68 P.3d 173; cert. quashed, 82 P.3d 534.
Triggering event. — It is clear from both this section and related regulations that the triggering event for the 15-day protest period is the knowledge of facts or occurrences giving rise to the protest during the entire procurement process, regardless of whether the protestant is protesting the solicitation, bid, or award process. James Hamilton Constr. Co. v. State ex rel. State Highway & Transp. Dep't, 2003-NMCA-067, 133 N.M. 627, 68 P.3d 173; cert. quashed, 82 P.3d 534.
Knowledge. — This section does not limit knowledge of the facts to actual knowledge, but rather "knowledge" in this section can properly be construed as constructive as well as actual knowledge. James Hamilton Constr. Co. v. State ex rel. State Highway & Transp. Dep't, 2003-NMCA-067, 133 N.M. 627, 68 P.3d 173; cert. quashed, 82 P.3d 534.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 64 Am. Jur. 2d Public Works and Contracts § 83; 144 to 146.
Standing of disappointed bidder on public contract to seek damages under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 for public authorities' alleged violation of bidding procedures, 86 A.L.R. Fed. 904.