ORS 279B.420¹
Judicial review of other violations

(1) Any violation of ORS chapter 279A by a contracting agency for which no judicial remedy is otherwise provided by ORS chapter 279A, 279B or 279C is subject to judicial review only as provided in this section.

(2) Any violation of this chapter, except ORS 279B.270 (State contracting agencies to use recovered resources and recycled materials), 279B.275 (Purchase of goods containing recycled polyethylene material), 279B.280 (Use of recycled products when economically feasible) and 279B.400 (Protests and judicial review of approvals of special procurements) to 279B.425 (Review of prequalification and debarment decisions), by a contracting agency for which no judicial remedy is otherwise provided by this chapter or ORS chapter 279A is subject to judicial review only as provided in this section.

(3) Judicial review is available under this section only if:

(a) A public contract is about to be awarded or has been awarded;

(b) An alleged violation of this chapter or ORS chapter 279A, except ORS 279B.270 (State contracting agencies to use recovered resources and recycled materials), 279B.275 (Purchase of goods containing recycled polyethylene material), 279B.280 (Use of recycled products when economically feasible) and 279B.400 (Protests and judicial review of approvals of special procurements) to 279B.425 (Review of prequalification and debarment decisions), occurred in the procurement process for the public contract and that violation resulted in or will result in the unlawful award of a contract or the unlawful failure to award the contract;

(c) The alleged violation deprived the person seeking judicial review of the award of the contract or deprived the person of the opportunity to compete for the award of the contract;

(d) The person seeking judicial review would have been qualified to receive the award of the contract under ORS 279B.110 (Responsibility of bidders and proposers);

(e) The person seeking judicial review gave written notice describing the alleged violation to the contracting agency no later than 10 days after the date on which the alleged violation occurred and in no event more than 10 days after the date of execution of the contract;

(f) The person seeking judicial review has exhausted all administrative remedies provided by the contracting agency; and

(g)(A) In the case of an alleged violation of ORS chapter 279A, the alleged violation is one for which no judicial review is provided by any other section of ORS chapter 279A, 279B or 279C; or

(B) In the case of an alleged violation of this chapter, except ORS 279B.270 (State contracting agencies to use recovered resources and recycled materials), 279B.275 (Purchase of goods containing recycled polyethylene material), 279B.280 (Use of recycled products when economically feasible) and 279B.400 (Protests and judicial review of approvals of special procurements) to 279B.425 (Review of prequalification and debarment decisions), the alleged violation is one for which no judicial review is provided by any other section of this chapter or ORS chapter 279A.

(4) An alleged violation committed by a state contracting agency is reviewable under ORS 183.484 (Jurisdiction for review of orders other than contested cases) by the Circuit Court for Marion County or the circuit court for the county in which the principal offices of the state contracting agency are located.

(5) An alleged violation committed by a local contracting agency is reviewable through a writ of review under ORS chapter 34 by the circuit court for the county in which the principal offices of the local contracting agency are located.

(6) If the notice required under subsection (3)(e) of this section is given and timely judicial review is sought under this section, the contracting agency may not proceed with contract execution unless the contracting agency determines that there is a compelling governmental interest in proceeding or that the goods and services are urgently needed. If the contracting agency makes such a determination, the contracting agency shall set forth in writing the reasons for the determination and immediately provide them to the person who filed the challenge. Thereafter, after joining the prospective contractor as a party to the litigation and upon motion by the person filing the challenge, the court may nonetheless stay the performance of the contract if the court finds that the contracting agency’s determination of the existence of a compelling governmental interest in proceeding with contract execution, or the contracting agency’s determination that the goods or services were urgently needed, was not supported by substantial evidence or constituted a manifest abuse of discretion. In granting a stay, the court may require the person seeking the stay to post a bond in an amount sufficient to protect the contracting agency and the public from costs associated with delay in contract performance.

(7) In its review, the circuit court shall give due deference to any factual contracting decision made by the contracting agency and may not substitute its judgment for that of the contracting agency, but shall review all questions of law de novo. Thereafter:

(a) If a contract has not been executed and the court rules in favor of the person that sought judicial review, and if the violation could have affected the award of the contract, the court shall remand the procurement to the contracting agency for a determination whether to continue with the procurement process in light of the court’s decision.

(b) In addition to the relief provided for in paragraph (a) of this subsection, if a contract has been executed and the court rules in favor of the person that sought judicial review, the court shall include in its order a determination whether the party that signed the contract with the contracting agency is entitled to reimbursement under the conditions of, and calculated in the same manner as provided in, ORS 279C.470 (Compensation for contractor on contract declared void by court). Notwithstanding that ORS 279C.470 (Compensation for contractor on contract declared void by court) otherwise applies only to public improvement contracts, under this paragraph the court shall apply ORS 279C.470 (Compensation for contractor on contract declared void by court) to both public improvement contracts and other public contracts of contracting agencies.

(c) The court may award costs and attorney fees to the prevailing party. [2003 c.794 §86a]

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 279B—Public Contracting - Public Procurements, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­Archive/­2007ors279B.­pdf (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
2 OregonLaws.org contains the con­tents of Volume 21 of the ORS, inserted along­side the per­tin­ent statutes. See the preface to the ORS An­no­ta­tions for more information.
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information