Section 13-1-182 - Ratification or termination after execution of contract

If after the execution of a valid, written contract by all parties and necessary approval authorities, the state purchasing agent or a central purchasing office makes a determination that a solicitation or award of the contract was in violation of law and if the business awarded the contract did not act fraudulently or in bad faith: A. the contract may be ratified, affirmed and revised to comply with law, provided that a determination is made that doing so is in the best interests of a state agency or a local public body; or B. the contract may be terminated, and the contractor shall be compensated for the actual expenses reasonably incurred under the contract plus a reasonable profit prior to termination. History: Laws 1984, ch. 65, § 155; 2002, ch. 62, § 2. ANNOTATIONSThe 2002 amendment, effective May 15, 2002, substituted 'execution of contract' for 'award' in the section heading; substituted 'the execution of a valid, written contract by all parties and necessary approval authorities' for 'an award' near the beginning of the introductory language; and substituted 'the contractor' for 'the business awarded the contract' in Subsection B. 'Award of contract'.

ry approval authorities' for 'an award' near the beginning of the introductory language; and substituted 'the contractor' for 'the business awarded the contract' in Subsection B. 'Award of contract'. — Selection of the top-ranked lease offeror through the notice of award is an 'award of a contract' under this section. Renaissance Office, LLC v. Gen. Servs. Dep't, 2001-NMCA-066, 130 N.M. 723, 31 P.3d 381, cert denied, 130 N.M. 713, 30 P.3d 1147 (now see 2002 amendments to this section). Revised determinations. — For the purposes of this section, when a court rules that a central purchasing office has erroneously determined that a contract award was lawful, the office shall be deemed to have entered a revised determination that the award was invalid, regardless of whether the court expressly orders the issuance of a new determination. Hamilton Roofing Co. v. Carlsbad Mun. Sch. Bd. of Educ., 1997-NMCA-053, 123 N.M. 434, 941 P.2d 515.