Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 279B.420 (2026)

Judicial review of other violations

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

      279B.420 Judicial review of other violations. (1) If a contracting agency allegedly violates a provision of ORS chapter 279A and a judicial remedy is not otherwise available under ORS chapter 279A, 279B or 279C, the alleged violation is subject to judicial review only as provided in this section.

      (2) If a contracting agency allegedly violates a provision of this chapter, except a provision of ORS 279B.030, 279B.033, 279B.036, 279B.270, 279B.275, 279B.280 or 279B.400 to 279B.425, and a judicial remedy is not otherwise provided in this chapter or ORS chapter 279A, the alleged violation is subject to judicial review only as provided in this section.

      (3) A person may seek judicial review under this section for a violation described in subsection (1) or (2) of this section only if:

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

      (b) The alleged violation of a provision of this chapter or ORS chapter 279A, except a provision of ORS 279B.030, 279B.033, 279B.036, 279B.270, 279B.275, 279B.280 or 279B.400 to 279B.425, occurred in the procurement process for the public contract and the alleged violation resulted in or will result in an unlawful award of a contract or an unlawful failure to award the contract;

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

      (d) The person was qualified to receive the award of the contract under ORS 279B.110;

      (e) The person gave written notice that described the alleged violation to the contracting agency not later than 10 days after the date on which the alleged violation occurred and, regardless of when the alleged violation occurred, not later than 10 days after the date of execution of the contract;

      (f) The person has exhausted all administrative remedies the contracting agency provides; and

      (g)(A) The alleged violation is a violation of a provision of ORS chapter 279A and no other section of ORS chapter 279A, 279B or 279C provides judicial review; or

      (B) The alleged violation is a violation of a provision of this chapter, except a provision of ORS 279B.030, 279B.033, 279B.036, 279B.270, 279B.275, 279B.280 or 279B.400 to 279B.425, and no other section of this chapter or ORS chapter 279A provides judicial review.

      (4) If a state contracting agency allegedly commits a violation, 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 may review the alleged violation under ORS 183.484.

      (5) If a local contracting agency allegedly commits a violation, the circuit court for the county in which the principal offices of the local contracting agency are located may review the alleged violation by means of a writ of review under ORS chapter 34.

      (6) If a person gives the notice required under subsection (3)(e) of this section and timely seeks judicial review under this section, the contracting agency may not execute the contract unless the contracting agency determines that a compelling governmental interest exists in proceeding or that the goods and services are urgently needed. A contracting agency that makes such a determination shall set forth in writing the reasons for the determination and immediately provide the reasons 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 who filed the challenge, the court may nonetheless stay the performance of the contract if the court finds that the contracting agency’s determination that a compelling governmental interest exists 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 who sought the stay to post a bond in an amount sufficient to protect the contracting agency and the public from costs associated with a delay in contract performance.

      (7) In a review, the circuit court shall give due deference to any factual contracting decision the contracting agency made and may not substitute the court’s judgment for the contracting agency’s judgment. The court 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 the court’s 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. Notwithstanding that ORS 279C.470 otherwise applies only to public improvement contracts, under this paragraph the court shall apply ORS 279C.470 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; 2009 c.880 §8a; 2011 c.9 §33]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2005–2020 · leading case: Hicks v. Cent. Point Sch. Dist., 348 P.3d 307 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hicks v. Cent. Point Sch. Dist., 348 P.3d 307 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “In fact, ORS 279B.420 describes the exclusive judicial remedies for violations of ORS chapter 279B for which “a judicial remedy is not otherwise provided” in ORS chapter 279A or 279B, but specifically exempts from its scope the provisions of ORS 279B.”
State Ex Rel. City of Powers v. Coos Cnty. Airport Dist., 119 P.3d 225 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “"); ORS 279B.420 (providing that "[a]n alleged violation committed by a local contracting agency is reviewable through a writ of review" and that violations are "subject to judicial review only as provided by this section"); ORS 307.”
Inbound v. Dept. of Forestry, 252 P.3d 336 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “As to the former, plaintiff argued that ORS 279B.420 [3] granted the *339 trial court jurisdiction to determine whether ODF violated ORS 279B.”
Inbound, LLC v. Dep't of Forestry, 252 P.3d 336 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “As to the former, plaintiff argued that ORS 279B.420 3 granted the trial court jurisdiction to determine whether ODF violated ORS 279B.”
Nyland v. City of Portland, 477 P.3d 442 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “ORS 279B.420(1). Violations by state contracting agencies in implementing the Public 9 ORS 279A.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 279B.420(1) — 1 case
Nyland v. City of Portland, 477 P.3d 442 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “ORS 279B.420(1). Violations by state contracting agencies in implementing the Public 9 ORS 279A.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 279B.420(2) — 2 cases
Inbound v. Dept. of Forestry, 252 P.3d 336 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “As to the former, plaintiff argued that ORS 279B.420 [3] granted the *339 trial court jurisdiction to determine whether ODF violated ORS 279B.”
Inbound, LLC v. Dep't of Forestry, 252 P.3d 336 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “As to the former, plaintiff argued that ORS 279B.420 3 granted the trial court jurisdiction to determine whether ODF violated ORS 279B.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 279B.420(4) — 1 case
Nyland v. City of Portland, 477 P.3d 442 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “ORS 279B.420(1). Violations by state contracting agencies in implementing the Public 9 ORS 279A.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 279B.420(5) — 1 case
Nyland v. City of Portland, 477 P.3d 442 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “ORS 279B.420(1). Violations by state contracting agencies in implementing the Public 9 ORS 279A.”
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.