This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Bernalillo County decided to build a new jail to address inmate overcrowding. The County opted not to apply a statutory resident preference, which would have given New Mexico contractors a bidding advantage by adjusting their bids downward by 5% for comparison purposes. The County argued that applying the preference would increase costs by over $1.5 million and reduce competitive bidding. A New Mexico contractor, Bradbury & Stamm, protested the decision after an Arizona contractor submitted the lowest bid, which was less than 5% lower than Bradbury & Stamm's bid (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: Held that the resident preference for public works contracts was mandatory and remanded the case to the County to apply the preference before awarding the contract (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Board of County Commissioners of Bernalillo County): Argued that the County had discretion under Section 13-4-1 to determine when it was "practicable" to apply the resident preference and that the district court should not have addressed the issue because Bradbury & Stamm failed to comply with administrative procedures (paras 1, 20).
- Appellee (Bradbury & Stamm Construction): Contended that the resident preference under Section 13-4-2(E) was mandatory and that it had substantially complied with administrative procedures, allowing the district court to address the issue (paras 15, 20-26).
Legal Issues
- Did the County have discretionary authority under Section 13-4-1 to determine when it was "practicable" to apply the resident preference?
- Was the resident preference under Section 13-4-2(E) mandatory for public works contracts?
- Did Bradbury & Stamm substantially comply with administrative procedures to allow judicial review?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the resident preference under Section 13-4-2(E) was mandatory and that Bradbury & Stamm substantially complied with administrative procedures (paras 27-28).
Reasons
Per Bosson CJ (Alarid and Wechsler JJ. concurring):
- Statutory Interpretation: The Court held that Section 13-4-2(E) provides a mandatory formula for applying the resident preference, which limits the County's discretion under Section 13-4-1. The legislature's use of "shall" in Section 13-4-2(E) indicates a mandatory duty, and the formula itself defines "practicability" by balancing cost and benefit (paras 13-17).
- Legislative Intent: The Court noted that the legislature retained the resident preference for public works contracts, even for high-value contracts, indicating a deliberate policy choice to support local contractors despite potential additional costs (paras 18-19).
- Administrative Compliance: The Court found that Bradbury & Stamm substantially complied with administrative procedures by addressing its protest to the County's senior buyer, who was responsible for procurement. The County was aware of the protest and had the opportunity to address it, satisfying the exhaustion of remedies requirement (paras 20-26).
- Public Importance: The Court addressed the appeal despite mootness concerns, as the issue of applying the resident preference was of substantial public importance and likely to recur (paras 8-12).