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

• Mira Consulting, Inc., a for-profit corporation providing dental services, responded to a Request for Information (RFI) issued by Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) seeking dental health providers for the 2014-2015 school year. The RFI required services to be provided at no cost to APS, with providers billing Medicaid or other third parties. Mira and another provider were selected, but Mira filed a bid protest arguing the Procurement Code's applicability due to issues with the distribution of schools and proximity to their dental homes. APS countered that the Procurement Code did not apply as no APS funds were expended in the transaction (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: The complaint for declaratory judgment filed by Mira Consulting, Inc. was dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 1-012(B)(6), agreeing with APS that the Procurement Code did not apply to the RFI (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (Mira Consulting, Inc.): Argued that the RFI was subject to New Mexico's Procurement Code, challenging the district court's dismissal of its complaint for declaratory judgment (para 4).
• Defendant-Appellee (Board of Education, Albuquerque Public Schools): Contended that the Procurement Code does not apply to transactions where APS does not expend any funds, as was the case with the RFI for dental services (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether New Mexico’s Procurement Code applies to an RFI issued by APS for dental health services when no APS funds are expended in the transaction (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Mira Consulting, Inc.'s complaint for declaratory judgment, agreeing that the Procurement Code does not apply to the RFI issued by APS (para 14).

Reasons

• Per Bustamante, J. (Sutin and Garcia, JJ., concurring): The court conducted a de novo review of statutory construction questions, focusing on the intent of the Legislature and the plain language of the statute. It was determined that the Procurement Code applies to expenditures by state agencies and local public bodies but does not apply to transactions like the RFI where APS does not expend funds. The court also considered the definition of "expenditure" and "concession" contracts, concluding that the arrangement did not involve APS expenditures and thus fell outside the Procurement Code's scope. The court referenced other jurisdictions' interpretations of similar statutes and rejected policy arguments for extending the Procurement Code to cover such transactions, emphasizing that legislative changes were outside the court's purview (paras 5-13).