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

• Resource Lighting, Inc. (Resource), an unsuccessful bidder for a construction contract with the University of New Mexico (UNM), filed a lawsuit against Rohde, May, Keller, McNamara Architecture, P.C. (RMKM) and Affiliated Engineers, Inc. (Affiliated). Resource alleged that these defendants, who were involved in the bid solicitation and procurement process for an electrical lighting project at a new hospital facility, improperly interfered with its relationship with UNM and wrongfully caused the rejection of its bid.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Valerie A. Huling, District Judge: Dismissed Resource's complaint for failing to exhaust administrative remedies under the Procurement Code prior to seeking judicial relief.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (Resource): Argued that the defendants were third parties to the procurement process and, as such, the Procurement Code did not preclude it from pursuing common-law or equitable remedies against them for wrongful conduct resulting in bid rejection.
• Defendants-Appellees (RMKM and Affiliated): Contended that the Procurement Code governed Resource's claims and that dismissal was necessary because Resource failed to exhaust its administrative remedies under the Procurement Code before seeking judicial relief. They also argued that they were not third parties but agents of UNM during the bidding process.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Procurement Code precludes a disappointed bidder from pursuing common-law or equitable remedies against third parties for wrongful conduct that resulted in bid rejection.
• Whether the defendants were acting as agents of UNM, thus requiring the plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies under the Procurement Code before seeking judicial relief.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of Resource's complaint and remanded for further proceedings.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with an opinion authored by Judge Cynthia A. Fry and concurrences from Chief Judge Celia Foy Castillo and Judge Jonathan B. Sutin, found that the district court erred in determining that Resource's claims fell within the purview of the Procurement Code. Citing Davis & Assocs., Inc. v. Midcon, Inc., the court held that the Procurement Code does not preclude disappointed bidders from pursuing common-law or equitable remedies against third parties for wrongful conduct resulting in bid rejection. The court disagreed with the defendants' contention that the Procurement Code applied because they were not third parties but agents of UNM during the bidding process. The court concluded that taking Resource's well-pleaded facts as true, the Procurement Code does not preclude Resource's common-law and equitable claims against the defendants. The court also noted that whether an agency relationship exists is generally a question of fact and that the material facts supporting an agency relationship were either disputed or unknown, thus not deciding on the existence of such a relationship in this case.