Protests and judicial review of approvals of special procurements
(1) Before seeking judicial review of the approval of a special procurement, a person must file a protest, in accordance with the rules adopted under ORS 279A.065 (Model rules generally), with the Director of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services or the local contracting agency, as applicable, and exhaust all available nonjudicial remedies. The rules adopted under ORS 279A.065 (Model rules generally) shall provide a reasonable time and manner for affected persons to protest the approval of a special procurement under ORS 279B.085 (Special procurements).
(2) The approval of a class special procurement by the director under ORS 279B.085 (Special procurements) constitutes rulemaking and not a contested case under ORS chapter 183. Any affected person, except the state contracting agency that requested the approval or anyone representing the state contracting agency, may petition the Court of Appeals in the manner provided in ORS 183.400 (Judicial determination of validity of rule) to test the validity of a class special procurement approved by the director. A proceeding under ORS 183.400 (Judicial determination of validity of rule) does not affect the validity of a contract executed pursuant to a class special procurement before the petition is filed. Notwithstanding ORS 183.400 (Judicial determination of validity of rule) (1), before seeking judicial review under this subsection, a person must file a protest with the director as described in subsection (1) of this section.
(3)(a) The approval of a contract-specific special procurement by the director is reviewable under ORS 183.484 (Jurisdiction for review of orders other than contested cases), but only if judicial review is sought before the contract is awarded. Otherwise, a contract awarded pursuant to the contract-specific special procurement is conclusively presumed valid and may not, in any future judicial or administrative proceeding, be challenged on the ground that the contract was awarded under an invalid special procurement.
(b) Judicial review may be sought from the Circuit Court for Marion County or the circuit court for the county in which the principal offices of the state contracting agency that requested the approval are located. The circuit court shall give priority on its docket and expedited review to proceedings under this subsection.
(4)(a) The approval of a special procurement by a local contract review board may be challenged by filing a writ of review under ORS chapter 34, provided that all available nonjudicial remedies first have been exhausted, including protests as described in subsection (1) of this section. Notwithstanding the 60-day filing period prescribed by ORS 34.030 (Jurisdiction to grant writ), the approval of a special procurement is not subject to a writ of review proceeding more than 10 days after the board approves the use of the special procurement.
(b) The writ of review may be filed with and is reviewable by the circuit court for the county in which the principal offices of the local contracting agency that requested the approval are located. The circuit court shall give priority on its docket and expedited review to proceedings under this subsection.
(5) If timely judicial review is sought regarding the approval of a special procurement under ORS 279B.085 (Special procurements), 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 or services are urgently needed. If the contracting agency makes such a determination, the contracting agency shall set forth the reasons for the determination in writing 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.
(6) 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 party 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 party 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 §83; 2005 c.103 §8g]
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.