Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 279.835 (2026)

Definitions for ORS 279.835 to 279.855

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      279.835 Definitions for ORS 279.835 to 279.855. As used in ORS 279.835 to 279.855:

      (1) “Department” means the Oregon Department of Administrative Services.

      (2) “Direct labor” includes all hours directly related to the performance of a service or manufacture of a product, but not supervision, administration, inspection and shipping.

      (3) “Disability” means a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

      (4) “Individual with a disability” means an individual who, because of the nature of disabilities, relies upon specialized employment services to find, secure and maintain employment.

      (5) “Public agency” or “public contracting agency” means any agency of the State of Oregon or any political subdivision thereof authorized by law to enter into public contracts and any public body created by intergovernmental agreement.

      (6) “Qualified nonprofit agency for individuals with disabilities” means a nonprofit organization:

      (a) Organized under the laws of the United States or of this state and operated to provide training or employment for individuals with disabilities in this state, and the net income of which does not inure in whole or in part to the benefit of any shareholder or other individual;

      (b) That complies with any applicable occupational health and safety standard required by the laws of the United States and of this state; and

      (c) That in the manufacture of products and in the provision of services, whether or not the products or services are procured under ORS 279.835 to 279.855, employs individuals with disabilities for not less than:

      (A) 75 percent of the work hours of direct labor required for the manufacture or provision of the products or services during a fiscal year that begins on or before June 30, 2019.

      (B) 65 percent of the work hours of direct labor required for the manufacture or provision of the products or services during a fiscal year that begins on or after July 1, 2019, and before June 30, 2021.

      (C) 60 percent of the work hours of direct labor required for the manufacture or provision of the products or services, or the federal ratio, whichever is lower, during a fiscal year that begins on or after July 1, 2021. [1977 c.304 §3; 1983 c.690 §17; 1989 c.224 §42; 1991 c.93 §1; 1993 c.500 §34; 2001 c.104 §96; 2003 c.794 §229b; 2007 c.70 §62; 2019 c.371 §4]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Indep. Contractors Rsch. Inst. v. Dep't of Admin. Servs., 139 P.3d 995 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
Indep. Contractors Rsch. Inst. v. Dep't of Admin. Servs., 139 P.3d 995 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 13× “Petitioners challenge the validity of rules promulgated by the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) to implement the Products of Disabled Individuals Act (PDIA), ORS 279.835 to 279.855. In their eight assignments of error, petitioners argue that the fiscal impact…”
BWK, Inc. v. Dep't of Admin. Servs., 218 P.3d 156 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 16× “(Garten) was a qualified rehabilitation facility (QRF) under the Products of Disabled Individuals Act (PDIA), ORS 279.835 to 279.855. 1 Petitioner contends that DAS had no authority to conduct a contested case hearing to determine Garten’s qualifications as a QRF and that its…”
Depaul Indus. v. Benjamin Miller, 14 F.4th 1021 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 279.835 (5), 279.850(1)(a).”
Hinkley v. Eugene Water & Elec. Bd., 74 P.3d 1146 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “015 certain public contracts are exempted from competitive bidding if the public contracting agency has entered into the contract or contracts with qualified nonprofit agencies providing employment opportunities for disabled individuals within the meaning of and subject to the…”
State Ex Rel. Portland Habilitation Ctr., Inc. v. Portland State Univ., 292 P.3d 537 (Or. 2012). · cites it 4× “Defendant is a “public agency” or “public contracting agency,” ORS 279.835(4); under ORS 279.850(1), a public agency must procure certain services from a qualified nonprofit agency as defined in ORS 279.”
Oregon-Columbia Chapter AGC v. ODOT (S071452), 373 Or. 405 (Or. 2025). “335(10) provides, in its entirety: “This section does not apply to ORS 279.835 to 279.855, 279A.140 to 279A.”
Servs. Employees Int'l v. Portland Habilitation Ctr., Inc., 173 P.3d 1268 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “ORS 279.835(5). Under the Oregon Products of Disabled Individuals Law (PDIL), contracts between public agencies and QRFs need not be based on competitive bids or proposals but, rather, can be entered at prices established by the Oregon Department of Administrative Services.”
DePaul Indus. v. City of Eugene (D. Or. 2020). · cites it 4× “See ORS §§ 279.835–279.855. Plaintiff is the only QRF providing security services in Lane County.”
Depaul Indus. v. City of Portland (D. Or. 2022). · cites it 2× “850(2) discusses what a public agency may require in an agreement with a qualified nonprofit agency: [a] public agency may require in any agreement with a qualified nonprofit agency for individuals with disabilities under ORS 279.835 . . . to 279.855 . . . that the qualified…”
Oregon-Columbia Chapter AGC v. ODOT (S071452), 373 Or. 405 (Or. 2025). “335(10) provides, in its entirety: “This section does not apply to ORS 279.835 to 279.855, 279A.140 to 279A.”
Oregon-Columbia Chapter AGC v. ODOT (S071452), 373 Or. 405 (Or. 2025). “335(10) provides, in its entirety: “This section does not apply to ORS 279.835 to 279.855, 279A.140 to 279A.”
Nw. Success, Inc. v. City of Portland (D. Or. 2025). “§ 279.835(5) (“‘Public agency’ or ‘public contracting agency’ means any agency of the State of Oregon or any political subdivision thereof authorized by law to enter into public contracts and any public body created by intergovernmental agreement.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 279.835(2) — 1 case
Indep. Contractors Rsch. Inst. v. Dep't of Admin. Servs., 139 P.3d 995 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Petitioners challenge the validity of rules promulgated by the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) to implement the Products of Disabled Individuals Act (PDIA), ORS 279.835 to 279.855. In their eight assignments of error, petitioners argue that the fiscal impact…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 279.835(3) — 1 case
Indep. Contractors Rsch. Inst. v. Dep't of Admin. Servs., 139 P.3d 995 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Petitioners challenge the validity of rules promulgated by the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) to implement the Products of Disabled Individuals Act (PDIA), ORS 279.835 to 279.855. In their eight assignments of error, petitioners argue that the fiscal impact…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 279.835(4) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Portland Habilitation Ctr., Inc. v. Portland State Univ., 292 P.3d 537 (Or. 2012). “Defendant is a “public agency” or “public contracting agency,” ORS 279.835(4); under ORS 279.850(1), a public agency must procure certain services from a qualified nonprofit agency as defined in ORS 279.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 279.835(4)(c) — 1 case
BWK, Inc. v. Dep't of Admin. Servs., 218 P.3d 156 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “(Garten) was a qualified rehabilitation facility (QRF) under the Products of Disabled Individuals Act (PDIA), ORS 279.835 to 279.855. 1 Petitioner contends that DAS had no authority to conduct a contested case hearing to determine Garten’s qualifications as a QRF and that its…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 279.835(5) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Portland Habilitation Ctr., Inc. v. Portland State Univ., 292 P.3d 537 (Or. 2012). “Defendant is a “public agency” or “public contracting agency,” ORS 279.835(4); under ORS 279.850(1), a public agency must procure certain services from a qualified nonprofit agency as defined in ORS 279.”
Servs. Employees Int'l v. Portland Habilitation Ctr., Inc., 173 P.3d 1268 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “ORS 279.835(5). Under the Oregon Products of Disabled Individuals Law (PDIL), contracts between public agencies and QRFs need not be based on competitive bids or proposals but, rather, can be entered at prices established by the Oregon Department of Administrative Services.”
Nw. Success, Inc. v. City of Portland (D. Or. 2025). “§ 279.835(5) (“‘Public agency’ or ‘public contracting agency’ means any agency of the State of Oregon or any political subdivision thereof authorized by law to enter into public contracts and any public body created by intergovernmental agreement.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 279.835(5)(a) — 2 cases
Indep. Contractors Rsch. Inst. v. Dep't of Admin. Servs., 139 P.3d 995 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Petitioners challenge the validity of rules promulgated by the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) to implement the Products of Disabled Individuals Act (PDIA), ORS 279.835 to 279.855. In their eight assignments of error, petitioners argue that the fiscal impact…”
BWK, Inc. v. Dep't of Admin. Servs., 218 P.3d 156 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “(Garten) was a qualified rehabilitation facility (QRF) under the Products of Disabled Individuals Act (PDIA), ORS 279.835 to 279.855. 1 Petitioner contends that DAS had no authority to conduct a contested case hearing to determine Garten’s qualifications as a QRF and that its…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 279.835(5)(c) — 2 cases
BWK, Inc. v. Dep't of Admin. Servs., 218 P.3d 156 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “(Garten) was a qualified rehabilitation facility (QRF) under the Products of Disabled Individuals Act (PDIA), ORS 279.835 to 279.855. 1 Petitioner contends that DAS had no authority to conduct a contested case hearing to determine Garten’s qualifications as a QRF and that its…”
Indep. Contractors Rsch. Inst. v. Dep't of Admin. Servs., 139 P.3d 995 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Petitioners challenge the validity of rules promulgated by the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) to implement the Products of Disabled Individuals Act (PDIA), ORS 279.835 to 279.855. In their eight assignments of error, petitioners argue that the fiscal impact…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 279.835(6) — 1 case
DePaul Indus. v. City of Eugene (D. Or. 2020). “See ORS §§ 279.835–279.855. Plaintiff is the only QRF providing security services in Lane County.”
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.