AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Orion Technical Resources, LLC (Orion) and COMPA Industries, Inc. (COMPA) were finalists in a bidding process for a subcontract to provide vendor management and staff augmentation services to Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), managed by Los Alamos National Security, LLC (LANS). After submitting their final offers, LANS awarded the contract to COMPA. Orion then filed a complaint alleging that LANS breached an implied-in-fact contract by not adhering to the promised fair and competitive procurement process, and sought injunctive relief and damages (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court, June 29, 2009: Denied Orion's motion for a preliminary injunction after initially granting a temporary restraining order, allowing COMPA to proceed with the contract (para 4).
• District Court, March 2010: Granted LANS's and COMPA's motions for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing Orion's claims for breach of implied-in-fact contract and injunctive relief (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Orion: Argued that an implied-in-fact contract existed between it and LANS, requiring LANS to conduct a fair and competitive procurement process. Orion claimed LANS breached this contract by not adhering to its own RFP, Source Selection Plan, and procurement policies (para 3).
• LANS: Contended that New Mexico does not recognize a cause of action for breach of implied-in-fact contract in the private procurement context and argued that injunctive relief is not available to a disappointed bidder (para 5).
• COMPA: Supported LANS's position and sought dismissal of Orion's request for injunctive relief, arguing that the service contract had already been awarded and an injunction would not remedy any improper conduct (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether an implied-in-fact contract can exist between a disappointed bidder and the solicitor of bids in the private procurement process (para 1).
• Whether injunctive relief is ever available to a disappointed bidder in cases of alleged breach of such an implied contract (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of Orion's claim for breach of implied contract, allowing the claim to proceed (para 34).
• The Court affirmed the district court's denial of Orion's motion for injunctive relief but reversed the limitation on the nature of damages available to Orion, indicating that expectancy damages could be a possible remedy (para 34).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Linda M. Vanzi, held that a disappointed bidder is not barred as a matter of law from bringing a claim based on an implied-in-fact contract in the context of the private solicitation process. The Court found that specific representations made by LANS could give rise to such a contract, reversing the district court on this issue (paras 7-26). However, the Court agreed with the district court that injunctive relief was not appropriate under the circumstances of this case, given that COMPA had already begun performing under the contract and there was an adequate remedy at law available to Orion. The Court clarified that expectancy damages, not just reliance damages, could be available in such cases, expanding the potential remedies for Orion (paras 27-33).