Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

62 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 561 (2026)

Finality of determinations.

✓ current as of May 2026

Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

SUBCHAPTER G

DETERMINATIONS AND REPORTS

Sec.

561. Finality of determinations.

562. Anticompetitive practices.

563. Retention of procurement records.

564. Record of certain actions.

§ 561. Finality of determinations.

The determinations required by the following sections are final and conclusive unless they are clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law:

Section 512(f) (relating to competitive sealed bidding).

Section 513(a) and (g) (relating to competitive sealed proposals).

Section 515 (relating to sole source procurement).

Section 516 (relating to emergency procurement).

Section 518(e) (relating to competitive selection procedures for certain services).

Section 519(f) (relating to selection procedure for insurance and notary bonds).

Section 534(c) (relating to cost or pricing data).

Section 541 (relating to approval of accounting system).

Cross References. Section 561 is referred to in section 563 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: UnitedHealthcare of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 172 A.3d 98 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

UnitedHealthcare of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 172 A.3d 98 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “HEDIS and SDB protests were challenges to the evaluation and selection of offerors for negotiation. The Procurement Code provides that the standard of review applicable to such protests is whether the determination was “clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.”

Dep't of the Auditor Gen. v. State Employees' Ret. Sys., 836 A.2d 1053 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003). “trative Code of 1929, respectively, impose a duty of cooperation on any department, board or commission upon which demand is made for data or information and confer subpoena power in the Department to require the production of documents for examination; Section 563 of the…”

Gateway Health Plan, Inc. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 172 A.3d 700 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “Because Gateway did not file any timely challenge to the structure or requirements of the CHC Program or to any terms of the RFP, the only portions of its protest that the Director could consider on the merits were its challenges to the Department’s evaluation and selection of…”

Centurylink Pub. Commc'ns, Inc. v. Dep't of Corr., 109 A.3d 820 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015). “” 62 Pa.C.S. § 561. . The protest’s filing resulted in an automatic stay of the award to Securus under Section 1711.”

Global TelLink Corp. v. Dep't of Corr., 109 A.3d 809 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015). “” 62 Pa.C.S. § 561. . The contract award to Securus was stayed pending the resolution of GTL’s protest.”

UnitedHealthcare of PA, Inc. v. DHS (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018). “1(i) of the Procurement Code states that this Court “shall hear the appeal, without a jury, on the record of determination certified by the purchasing agency,” and “[s]hall affirm the determination of the purchasing agency unless it finds from the record that the determination…”

Vista Health Plan, Inc. v. DHS (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018). “1(i) of the Procurement Code states that this Court “shall hear the appeal, without a jury, on the record of determination certified by the purchasing agency,” and “[s]hall affirm the determination of the purchasing agency unless it finds from the record that the determination…”

Aetna Better Health of PA, Inc. v. DHS (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018). “1(i) of the Procurement Code states that this Court “shall hear the appeal, without a jury, on the record of determination certified by the purchasing agency,” and “[s]hall affirm the determination of the purchasing agency unless it finds from the record that the determination…”

PA Health & Wellness, Inc. v. DHS (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2021). “62 Pa. C.S. § 561. . . . As the protesting party, PHW has the burden of demonstrating that the Department abused its discretion.”

Gateway Health Plan, Inc. d/b/a Highmark Wholecare v. DHS (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2026). “3d 488 , 491 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). Section 561 of the Procurement Code provides that agency determinations relating to competitive sealed proposals are final and conclusive unless they are “clearly 8 erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.”

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.