All actions authorized by the Procurement Code for judicial review of a determination shall be filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 39-3-1.1 NMSA 1978.

History: Laws 1984, ch. 65, § 156; 1998, ch. 55, § 24; 1999, ch. 265, § 24.

The 1999 amendment, effective July 1, 1999, substituted "Section 39-3-1.1" for "Section 12-8A-1".

The 1998 amendment, effective September 1, 1998, rewrote this section to the extent that a detailed comparison is impracticable.

Administrative protest appealable. — 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 NMSA 1978), who were given authority to resolve protests pursuant to § 13-1-174 NMSA 1978, and therefore constituted an administrative tribunal whose decision was appealable, as provided by § 13-1-183 NMSA 1978, 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.

Judicial review standard. — Judicial relief is available to the disappointed bidder when a municipality acts in an arbitrary and capricious manner and violates the integrity of the Procurement Code. Planning & Design Solutions v. City of Santa Fe, 1994-NMSC-112, 118 N.M. 707, 885 P.2d 628.

Common law action. — Nothing in the Procurement Code precludes an unsuccessful bidder from bringing a common-law action to challenge the acts of a third party whose protest results in the rejection of the bidder's bid. Davis & Assocs., Inc. v. Midcon, Inc., 1999-NMCA-047, 127 N.M. 134, 978 P.2d 341.

Damages awarded to bidder. — Reliance damages compensate the bidder's interest in being reimbursed for loss caused by reliance on the contract. New Mexico, therefore, joins other jurisdictions that in similar situations have awarded to a disappointed bidder the expenses incurred in preparing and submitting a bid. Planning & Design Solutions v. City of Santa Fe, 1994-NMSC-112, 118 N.M. 707, 885 P.2d 628.

Exclusivity of remedy. — The Procurement Code does not expressly or impliedly authorize any private right of action for disappointed offerors, since Section 13-1-183 provides an adequate legal remedy. State ex rel. Educ. Assessments. Sys. v. Coop. Educ. Servs., 1993-NMCA-024, 115 N.M. 196, 848 P.2d 1123.

Jurisdiction to review. — The court lacked jurisdiction to review a purported settlement agreement between a bidder and an incorporated electric cooperative since an incorporated electric cooperative is neither a state agency nor a local public body and the Procurement Code therefore does not apply to it. Fratello v. Socorro Elec. Corp., 1988-NMSC-058, 107 N.M. 378, 758 P.2d 792.