(2) A decision by a state contracting agency on a protest of a contract award is reviewable by the Circuit Court for Marion County or the circuit court for the county in which the principal offices of the state contracting agency are located. A decision by a local contracting agency on a protest of a contract award is reviewable by the circuit court for the county in which the principal offices of the local contracting agency are located.
(3) To obtain review, a complainant must commence an action before the contract that is the subject of the protest is approved by the Attorney General, if required by ORS 291.047, and executed by the contracting agency. In the complaint, the complainant shall state the nature of the complainant’s interest, the facts showing how the complainant is adversely affected or aggrieved by the contracting agency’s decision and the basis upon which the decision should be reversed or remanded. The complainant shall join as parties all bidders that would be in line for an award of the contract ahead of the complainant. If injunctive relief is sought, the court may require the person seeking a stay to post a bond in an amount sufficient to protect the contracting agency and the public from costs associated with delay in execution of the contract.
(4) When judicial review is sought, the contracting agency may not proceed with contract execution unless the contracting agency determines that there is a compelling governmental interest in proceeding or that the goods and services are urgently needed. If the contracting agency makes such a determination, the contracting agency shall set forth the reasons for the determination in writing and immediately provide them to the complainant. Thereafter, upon motion from the complainant, the court may nonetheless stay the performance of the contract if the court finds that the contracting agency’s determination of the existence of a compelling governmental interest in proceeding with contract execution, or the contracting agency’s determination that the goods or services were urgently needed, was not supported by substantial evidence or constituted a manifest abuse of discretion. In granting a stay, the court may require the person seeking the stay to post a bond in an amount sufficient to protect the contracting agency and the public from costs associated with delay in contract performance.
(5) The court shall review the matter without a jury and shall consider only those grounds the complainant raised in the protest to the contracting agency.
(6) The court shall remand the matter to the contracting agency for a further decision if:
(a) Substantial evidence does not exist to support the contracting agency’s decision. Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding;
(b) The contracting agency’s decision was outside the range of discretion delegated to the contracting agency by law;
(c) The decision was inconsistent with a contracting agency rule, an officially stated contracting agency position or an officially stated prior contracting agency practice, if the inconsistency is not explained by the contracting agency; or
(d) The decision was in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision.
(7)(a) In addition to remanding the decision to the contracting agency, the court may order such ancillary relief, such as the cost of bid preparation, as the court finds necessary to redress the effects of official action wrongfully taken or withheld. Ancillary relief does not include the award of a contract to the complainant or the award of lost profits or other damages.
(b) If a contract has not been executed and the court rules in favor of the complainant, the court shall remand the matter to the contracting agency for a determination whether to continue with the procurement process in light of the court’s decision.
(c) If a contract has been executed, in addition to the relief provided for in paragraph (a) of this subsection, the court shall include in its order a determination whether the party that signed the contract with the contracting agency is entitled to reimbursement under the conditions of, and calculated in the same manner as provided in, ORS 279C.470. Notwithstanding that ORS 279C.470 otherwise applies only to public improvement contracts, under this paragraph the court shall apply ORS 279C.470 to both public improvement contracts and other public contracts of contracting agencies.
(d) The court may award costs and attorney fees to the prevailing party. [2003 c.794 §86; 2007 c.764 §12]