James Hamilton Construction Co. v. State ex rel. New Mexico State Highway & Transportation Department
Docket: No. 22,553
Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals; January 31, 2003; New Mexico; State Appellate Court
James Hamilton Construction Company (Hamilton) protested the award of a construction bid to FNF Construction, Inc. (FNF), arguing that FNF's bid was unsigned. The New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department (the Department) denied Hamilton's protest as untimely, a decision upheld by the district court. The Department also concluded that the lack of a signature on FNF's bid did not invalidate it, viewing this as a minor irregularity that could be waived. Hamilton's protest was deemed untimely because, upon the bids being opened on December 15, 2000, Hamilton had constructive knowledge of the bid's unsigned status. The Department determined that Hamilton should have filed its protest within fifteen days of this date rather than from when it actually discovered the issue. After the district court upheld the Department's decision, Hamilton sought a writ of certiorari from the higher court, which was granted.
The court is examining whether the district court's decision is inconsistent with relevant statutes, ordinances, or regulations. Under the Procurement Code, aggrieved bidders may protest a contract solicitation or award within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts. Hamilton contends that the protest timeline starts with the final award, not the preliminary one, and asserts that there is no statutory right to protest a bid itself. The court counters that Hamilton's interpretation is overly narrow, emphasizing that the Procurement Code aims for timely resolution of protests to ensure fairness and protect public funds.
The statute and associated regulations indicate that the fifteen-day protest window begins when a bidder becomes aware of any facts leading to a protest throughout the entire procurement process, not just at the final award stage. The court highlights that a preliminary award can serve as a valid basis for a protest, as evidenced by a similar case involving Western Mobile. Ultimately, Hamilton's awareness of an unsigned bid from the successful bidder marked the trigger for filing a protest, aligning with the broader interpretation of the statute and regulations regarding the procurement process.
The Department determined that the time for filing a protest begins when the protestant is deemed to have knowledge of relevant facts, either actual or constructive, through the exercise of ordinary care. It argued that Hamilton should have been aware that FNF's bid was unsigned at the time the bids were opened and made public. Although Hamilton did not dispute the Department's definition of knowledge, the appeal clarified that the relevant date was not the bid opening but instead the point at which Hamilton should have recognized the unsigned bid. The Department's interpretation of "knowledge" includes both actual and constructive knowledge, obligating bidders to exercise reasonable diligence to discover pertinent facts for protests. While bidders could notice deficiencies upon bid opening, they are not required to inspect every bid in advance of the award. Nonetheless, once a preliminary award is made, any protest must be filed within fifteen days of that award based on facts that the bidder knows or should know. Hamilton was deemed to have known about the unsigned bid by January 12, 2001, and thus should have filed its protest by January 27, 2001. The protest filed on February 16, 2001, was therefore considered untimely. The district court's decision was affirmed.
