N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 13 / Article 1
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 13-1-172 (2026)

Right to protest.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
Any bidder or offeror who is aggrieved in connection with a solicitation or award of a
contract may protest to the state purchasing agent or a central purchasing office. The
protest shall be submitted in writing within fifteen calendar days after knowledge of the
facts or occurrences giving rise to the protest.

History: Laws 1984, ch. 65, § 145; 1987, ch. 348, § 19.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Appellate review of administrative protest. — A protest of the award of a contract for
a campus electrical distribution upgrade project complied with the process outlined in
the Procurement Code to protest a decision by protesting to the state purchasing agent
or a central purchasing office (§ 13-1-172), who were given authority to resolve protests
pursuant to § 13-1-174, and therefore constituted an administrative tribunal whose
decision was appealable, as provided by § 13-1-183, pursuant to the provisions of § 39-
3-1.1. State ex rel. ENMU Regents v. Baca, 2008-NMSC-047, 144 N.M. 530, 189 P.3d
663.

Adequate legal remedy. — The Procurement Code provides an adequate legal
remedy to disappointed bidders by giving them the right to protest pursuant to § 13-1-
172 and the statutory remedy of judicial review pursuant to § 13-1-183. State ex rel.
Educ. Assessments Sys., Inc. v. Coop. Educ. Servs. of N.M., 1993-NMCA-024, 115
N.M. 196, 848 P.2d 1123.

An important goal of the Procurement Code is that protests are to be made and
resolved quickly and in furtherance of protecting the public fisc and of assuring the
fairness of the procurement process. James Hamilton Constr. Co. v. State ex rel. State
Highway & Transp. Dep’t, 2003-NMCA-067, 133 N.M. 627, 68 P.3d 173; cert. quashed,
82 P.3d 534.

Triggering event. — It is clear from both this section and related regulations that the
triggering event for the 15-day protest period is the knowledge of facts or occurrences
giving rise to the protest during the entire procurement process, regardless of whether
the protestant is protesting the solicitation, bid, or award process. James Hamilton
Constr. Co. v. State ex rel. State Highway & Transp. Dep’t, 2003-NMCA-067, 133 N.M.
627, 68 P.3d 173; cert. quashed, 82 P.3d 534.

Knowledge. — This section does not limit knowledge of the facts to actual knowledge,
but rather "knowledge" in this section can properly be construed as constructive as well
as actual knowledge. James Hamilton Constr. Co. v. State ex rel. State Highway &
Transp. Dep’t, 2003-NMCA-067, 133 N.M. 627, 68 P.3d 173; cert. quashed, 82 P.3d
534.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 64 Am. Jur. 2d Public Works and
Contracts § 83; 144 to 146.

Standing of disappointed bidder on public contract to seek damages under 42 U.S.C.S.
§ 1983 for public authorities' alleged violation of bidding procedures, 86 A.L.R. Fed.
904.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1993–2016 · leading case: State ex rel. Regents of E. New Mexico Univ. v. Baca, 2008 NMSC 047 (N.M. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Regents of E. New Mexico Univ. v. Baca, 2008 NMSC 047 (N.M. 2008). · cites it 7× “On December 22, 2007, DKD filed a protest pursuant to Section 13-1-172 of the Procurement Code, challenging the legality of the award to Wilson and requesting a hearing.”
State Ex Rel. Enmu Regents v. Baca, 189 P.3d 663 (N.M. 2008). · cites it 7× “On December 22, 2007, DKD filed a protest pursuant to Section 13-1-172 of the Procurement Code, challenging the legality of the award to Wilson and requesting a hearing.”
State ex rel. Educ. Assessments Sys., Inc. v. Coop. Educ. Servs. of New Mexico, Inc., 848 P.2d 1123 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 11× “However, prior to consolidation, CES moved for summary judgment in the first lawsuit, arguing (1) that the issues were moot since CES had been dissolved and no longer acted as the administering agency under the JPA; and (2) that an adequate remedy at law existed under Section…”
Byrne & Jones Enter., Inc. d/b/a Byrne & Jones Constr. v. Monroe City R-1 Sch. Dist., 493 S.W.3d 847 (Mo. 2016). · cites it 2× “1(b) (final decisions appealable to the appellate division of the Superior Court of New Jersey); N.M. Stat. § 13-1-172 (providing for written bid protest to “[a]ny bidder or offeror who is aggrieved in connection with a solicitation or award” within 15 days); N.”
BC & L Pavement Servs., Inc. v. Higgins, 51 P.3d 533 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Higgins ruled that BC & L’s June 2nd letter did not merely clarify issues raised in the May 24th letter, but raised new issues which were not timely filed pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 13-1-172 (1987) (providing that protest be submitted “within fifteen calendar days after knowledge…”
Davis & Assocs., Inc. v. Midcon, Inc., 978 P.2d 341 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “In fact, Section 13-1-172 of the Procurement Code expressly authorizes “[a]ny bidder .”
Bradbury & Stamm Constr. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Bernalillo Cnty., 35 P.3d 298 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “” NMSA 1978, § 13-1-172 (1987). A central purchasing office is statutorily defined as “that office or officer within a state agency or a local public body responsible for the control of procurement of .”
State Ex Rel. Eas v. Coop. Educ., 848 P.2d 1123 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 11× “However, prior to consolidation, CES moved for summary judgment in the first lawsuit, arguing (1) that the issues were moot since CES had been dissolved and no longer acted as the administering agency under the JPA; and (2) that an adequate remedy at law existed under Section…”
Mira Consulting, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ., 2017 NMCA 009 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Although Mira was “awarded” sixty-eight schools and Smiles for New Mexico Kids was awarded thirty schools, Mira filed a bid protest with APS’s procurement division pursuant to Section 13-1-172 of New Mexico’s Procurement Code, NMSA 1978, §§ 13-1-28 to -199 (1984, as amended…”
James Hamilton Constr. Co. v. State ex rel. New Mexico State High. & Transp. Dep't, 2003 NMCA 067 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 11× “The protest shall be submitted in writing within fifteen calendar days after knowledge of the facts or occurrences giving rise to the protest.”
Mira Consulting, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ., 2017 NMCA 9 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Although Mira was “awarded” sixty-eight schools and Smiles for New Mexico Kids was awarded thirty schools, Mira filed a bid protest with APS’s procurement division pursuant to Section 13-1-172 of New Mexico’s Procurement Code, NMSA 1978, §§ 13-1-28 to -199 (1984, as amended…”
Hamilton Roofing Co. of Carlsbad, Inc. v. Carlsbad Mun. Schs. Bd. of Educ., 941 P.2d 515 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to Section 13-1-172, Allen Roofing Company (Allen) protested the award to Hamilton, contending that Hamilton had not filed a responsive bid.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.