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.

The 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". — 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.