Title: Engineering Mgt. v. State Highway

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

Engineering Management Services, Inc. v. Maryland State Highway Administration
No. 71, September Term, 2002
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - RULEMAKING - PROCEDURAL RULES - SUMMARY
DISPOSITION
An agency may not grant a motion for the summary disposition of a claim or contested case
where the agency’s enabling statute directs that the agency shall adopt procedural regulations
that provide for such resolution of contested cases before that agency, and the agency fails
to adopt such procedural regulations.
Circuit Court for Baltimore City 
Case # 24-C-00-000845
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
MARYLAND
No. 71
September Term, 2002
ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
                          SERVICES, INC.
v.
MARYLAND STATE HIGHWAY
                       ADMINISTRATION
Bell, C.J.
Eldridge
                    Raker
Wilner
Cathell
Harrell
Battaglia,
JJ.
Opinion by Harrell, J.
Filed:   June 11, 2003
1 Maryland Code (1974, 2001 Repl. Vol.), State Finance and Procurement Article, §§
15-215- 15-223.  Unless otherwise provided , all statutory references are to the Maryland
Code (1974, 2001 Repl. Vol.), State Finance and Procurement Article
2 Md. Code (1974, 2001 Repl. Vol.), State Finance and Procurement Art., §15-217
states:
(a) In General. - (1) A prospective bidder or offeror, a bidder, or an
offeror may submit a protest to the procurement officer.
(2) A person who has been awarded a procurement contract may
submit a contract claim to the procurement officer.
(b) Time for submission. - Except as provided in § 15-219 of this
subtitle, a protest or contract claim shall be submitted within the time required
under regulations adopted by the primary procurement unit responsible for the
procurement.
See also Md. Code (1974, 2001 Repl. Vol.), State Finance and Procurement Art., §15-219(a),
(c), & (d). 
3 Md. Code (1974, 2001 Repl. Vol.), State Finance and Procurement Art., § 15-218(d);
§15-219(c) & (d).
4 Md. Code (1974, 2001 Repl. Vol.), State Finance and Procurement Art., §15-219(g);
§ 15-220.  
5 Maryland Code (1974, 2001 Repl. Vol.), State Finance and Procurement Art., §15-
I.
State procurement contracts are subject to an exclusive, statutorily-prescribed
procedure for resolving disputes.  The procedure consists of four parts.1  First, the dispute
must be submitted to the agency procurement officer for attempted resolution.2  Second, the
agency head may approve, disapprove, or modify the procurement officer’s decision.3  Third,
the decision of the agency head may be appealed to the Maryland State Board of Contract
Appeals (“MSBCA”).4  Fourth, the MSBCA’s decision is subject to judicial review under the
contested case provisions of the  Maryland Administrative Procedure Act.5
5(...continued)
223.
6 Md. Code (1974, 2001 Repl. Vol.), State Finance and Procurement Art., §15-
219(g)(1) states: “Decision not to pay claim - (1) a decision not to pay a contract claim is a
final action for the purposes of appeal to the Appeals Board.”
7 COMAR 21.10.04.02(A) states:
Unless a lesser period is prescribed by law or by contract,
(continued...)
2
The present case, being the fruit of the foregoing dispute resolution process, arises
from a dispute between Engineering Management Services, Inc. (“EMS”) and the Maryland
State Highway Administration (“SHA”) over a contract for the removal of lead paint and the
repainting of five bridges in Baltimore and Howard Counties. The dispute revolved around
EMS’s claim for additional funds to comply with changes in the Federal Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (“OSHA”) regulations relating to lead exposure of abatement
workers which had not been taken into account expressly during the bid and award process.
For purposes of EMS’s appeal to the  MSBCA, the “final decision of the unit”6 denying
EMS’s claims occurred on 28 June 1999.  EMS timely appealed that final decision to the
MSBCA on 27 July 1999.
The SHA filed a “Motion for Summary Disposition,” asserting that EMS’s notice of
claim was untimely.  The MSBCA held a hearing at which EMS and SHA presented their
respective positions concerning summary disposition.  The MSBCA granted SHA’s motion
on 9 February 2000, and dismissed EMS’s appeal, construing against EMS the 30-day
“notice [to the procuring unit] of claim” provision of COMAR 21.10.04.02(A) & (C)7 as an
7(...continued)
a contractor shall file a written notice of a claim relating to a
contract with the appropriate procurement officer within 30 days
after the basis for the claim is known or should have been
known, whichever is earlier.
COMAR 21.10.04.02(C) states:
A notice of claim or a claim that is not filed within the time
prescribed in Regulation .02 of this chapter shall be dismissed.
3
absolute condition precedent to the MSBCA’s jurisdiction to review the final decision of the
procuring unit.  EMS timely petitioned the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for judicial
review of the dismissal.
The Circuit Court  reversed the Board’s decision and remanded the case, ordering the
MSBCA to conduct a hearing on the merits of EMS’s claim.  The SHA appealed to the Court
of Special Appeals.  In what ultimately became a  reported decision, the Court of Special
Appeals reversed the Circuit Court’s judgment.  Maryland State Highway Administration v.
Engineering Management Services, Inc., 147 Md. App. 132, 807 A.2d 1131 (2002). EMS
filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court which we granted.  Engineering v. State
Highway, 371 Md. 264, 808 A.2d 808 (2002).  In so doing, however, we added a third
question to the two presented  in EMS’s petition.
II.
The three questions for review are:
“1.
Did the Board err in construing the 30-day “notice of
claim”provision of COMAR 21.10.04.02 as an absolute
4
condition precedent to the Board’s jurisdiction to review the
final decision of a procuring unit?
“2.
Did the Board, using an unwritten ‘summary disposition’
procedure, err in dismissing EMS’s appeal based on an allegedly
untimely “notice of claim” to the SHA’s procurement office,
where the undisputed record evidence established that the SHA
had actual notice of the facts and circumstances giving rise to
EMS’s claim, the SHA’s denial of EMS’s claim was not based
on lack of timely notice, EMS’s affidavit regarding timeliness
was unrebutted, and there is no record evidence of any prejudice
to the SHA by timeliness of the notice EMS provided?
“3.
Whether, in a contested case involving a claim against a
government entity, Maryland Code (1984, 1999 Repl. Vol.),
Section 10-210(6) of the State Government Article, authorizes
an agency to reject the claim by summary disposition.”
III.
In March 1993, the SHA issued invitations for bids for the removal of lead-based
paint and the repainting of five bridges over I-95 in Baltimore and Howard Counties. The
Contract Special Provisions required compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (“EPA”) National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The relevant extant standard,
embodied in 40 C.F.R. Part 50, included a general permissible exposure limit for workers of
150 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter.  Contract General Provision GP-7.01
required the contractor to “comply with all Federal, State, and local laws, regulations and
ordinances applicable to its activities and obligations under this contract.”  General Provision
GP-7.05 additionally subjected the contractor to 29 C.F.R. § 1926, containing federal OSHA
regulations, “as revised from time to time.”
8 Prior to promulgation of 19 C.F.R. § 1926.62, OSHA regulations for lead exposure
at 29 C.F.R. § 1926 did not apply to construction workers.
5
By letter dated 13 April 1993, the SHA notified EM S that, at bid opening, EMS was
the apparent lowest competitive bidder.  The SHA issued a Notice of Award to EMS on 21
May 1993.   During the time between the bid opening and the Notice of Award, OSHA added
a new subsection to 29 C.F.R. § 1926.  The new regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.62, were
published in the Federal Register on 4 May 1993, with an effective date of 3 June 1993.
“Lead Exposure in Construction,” 58 Fed. Reg. 26,627 (4 May 1993).  The pertinent new
regulation imposed a maximum permissible exposure limit for lead inhalation, applicable to
construction workers, of 50 micrograms per cubic meter and required protections such as
protective clothing and equipment and special hygiene facilities and practices not previously
mandated by other regulations.8 
On 26 July 1993, SHA issued a Notice to Proceed to EMS.  EMS began performance
of the Contract on 30 September 1993.  The record indicates that EMS began experiencing
difficulties with equipment it had procured to perform the contract, resulting in some
impatience on the SHA’s part.  In a letter dated 12 January 1994, EMS attempted to explain
its difficulties with the equipment in terms of attempting to meet the EPA requirements, and
requested an extension of time to complete the work. On 28 March 1994, the Maryland
Occupational Safety and Health Unit (MOSH) of the Division of Labor and Industry adopted
for state regulatory purposes the more protective federal OSHA standard  in 29 C.F.R.
9 See n.10, infra.
10 EMS asserts in its brief that it originally bid the project, under the former COMAR
lead abatement regulation 09.12.32 embodying the EPA standard in 40 C.F.R. 50, at rates
running between Three Dollars and Fifty Cents and Four Dollars and Fifty Cents per square
foot.  EMS asserts that under the new OSHA regulations, its final costs ran approximately
Thirteen Dollars and Fifty Cents per square foot - an increase on average of Nine Dollars and
Fifty Cents per square foot.
6
1926.62.9   On 22 April 1994, EMS inquired of the SHA which standard - EPA’s 150
micrograms per cubic meter or OSHA’s  50 micrograms per cubic meter - applied to the
contract.  Five days later, on 27 April 1994, SHA advised EMS that the more stringent
provision of the “new” OSHA regulations governed.  
EMS notified SHA on 2 May 1994 that it was temporarily halting work while it
awaited results of tests to evaluate compliance with the new OSHA standards. On 6 March
1995, EMS asked SHA for a 180-day extension due to the impact on productivity of
compliance with the OSHA regulations. EMS followed on 13 June 1995 with a written
explanation of a claim for additional compensation of $1,244,564.00 to complete work on
all five bridges.10 This amount was reduced eventually to the additional cost of the three
bridges on which EMS had completed work to that time.  On 11 February 1997, SHA
instructed EMS not to complete the remaining work on the contract.  SHA and EMS
terminated the contract as to the remaining two bridges on 20 November 1997, entering into
a mutual termination agreement which read in pertinent part as follows:
SHA and EMS agree to mutually terminate this contract based
upon the following conditions:
11  The doctrine that failure to raise an issue below precludes its assertion on appeal
has no application to proceedings on claims before contracting agencies, such as SHA, as
such claims do not become contested cases, to which the APA applies, until they are
appealed to the MSBCA.    Md. Code (1974, 2001 Repl. Vol.), State Finance and
Procurement Art., §15-216.
7
EMS agrees that the claim and extensions for the amount of
$764,036.00 dated February 26, 1997 (currently at Chief
Engineer’s level) is EMS’ final claim on this contract.  It is
understood that EMS does not waive any rights of appeal of
this claim.  It is the intent of the parties to delete the remainder
of the work under the contract without cost or claim to either
party.
SHA agrees not to pursue termination for default.  In accordance
with normal project close out, SHA will pay EMS any and all
retention due.
It is understood that SHA has not agreed to make any payments
under said claim before the Chief Engineer, but will consider
the claim submitted.
This is a mutual termination and release of claims with the
exception of those mentioned above.  The signatures below
indicate confirmation of this agreement.  (emphasis added)
The SHA procurement officer denied EMS’s claims for additional compensation on 28 June
1999.  No mention was made  in the decision of the procurement officer regarding the
timeliness (or not) of EMS’s notice of claim for the $764,036.00.
After EMS appealed to the MSBCA, the SHA moved for summary disposition of
EMS’s claim, arguing, for the first time, 11 that EMS’s notice of claim to the SHA was
untimely under COMAR 21.10.04.02, requiring  that a contractor “shall file a written notice
of a claim . . . with the appropriate procurement officer within thirty days after the basis for
12 As is discussed infra, certain determinations by governmental agencies are afforded
deference by a reviewing court on the theory that the agency is specialized and has greater
expertise within the area of its authority.  This presumption of expertise, however, cuts both
ways. We observe that the new OSHA standards were published before the SHA let the
contract to EMS.  It reasonably could be  argued that the SHA, therefore, knew or should
have known before it let the contract that the more stringent standards would apply, that they
would  be more expensive to comply with, and that all of the bids it received for the bridges
contract, being calculated and submitted prior to the publication of the changes to the OSHA
regulations, were likely to be based on a mistaken estimate as to what those cost would be,
thus substantially under-calculating  the actual costs involved in the anticipated  performance
of the contract. See n.10, supra.  Further, that the State was aware that the new regulations
were causing problems for bridge painters elsewhere in the State, particularly  with regard
to acquiring approved respiratory equipment necessary for compliance, was admitted by the
State in a 22 June 1994 letter,  in the record, addressed to Reglas Painting from the Division
of Labor and Industry compliance health manager, Andrew Alcarese.
13 The issue was not raised, and thus we take no position on, whether this timeliness
defense by the SHA was estopped or had been waived as a result of the third condition of the
Mutual Termination Agreement, supra at p.7, or constitutes a breach of that agreement. See
Chandlee v. Shockley 219 Md. 493, 498-503, 150 A.2d 438, 441-43 (1959); Ohio Cas. Ins.
Co. v. Hallowell, 94 Md. App. 444, 456-59, 617 A.2d 1134, 1139-41 (1993).
8
the claim is known or should have been known, whichever is earlier.” 12 According to the
SHA, the first notice of claim by EMS to the SHA’s procurement officer was a letter dated
13 June 1995; however, timely notice was due by the end of October 1993, according to its
calculation.13  In response, EMS asserted that three of its letters to the SHA during contract
performance - dated 12 January 1994, 6 March 1995, and 13 June 1995 - each served to put
the SHA on timely written notice of its claim that EMS required more time and money to
perform the contract.
The MSBCA, after observing that it had been recognizing, considering, and granting
motions for summary disposition for seventeen years, based on an unwritten summary
14 Petitioner alleges that, in deciding the appeal, the MSBCA attempted to
approximate  procedures equivalent to those for a motion for summary judgment in a judicial
context.  See Md. Rule 2-501.  While a fair reading of the MSBCA’s decision suggests that
this was perhaps the MSBCA’s intent, it is not entirely clear, for reasons discussed infra, that
this was in fact what occurred.  
9
disposition procedure, granted the SHA’s motion for summary disposition.14   After making
fifteen findings of fact (presumably gleaned from the documentary record before it), the
MSBCA selected its own date for when notice of claim was due, one which differed from
those advanced by the parties.  The MSBCA reasoned that EMS knew or should have known
of the basis for its claim by the end of May 1994.  The MSBCA then held that, “[s]ince EMS
failed to submit its notice of claim in a timely manner, the Board lacks jurisdiction and the
appeal must be dismissed.”  The MSBCA justified this conclusion as follows:
The Board’s subject matter jurisdiction is limited to that which
has been specifically conferred upon it by the legislature.
Cherry Hill Constr., Inc., MSBCA No. 2056, 5 MSBCA  ¶ 459
(March19,1999) at p. 26 citing Univ. of Maryland v. MFE
Inc./NCP Architects, Inc., 345 Md. 86, 691 A.2d 676 (1997).
The Board only has jurisdiction over a claim that is timely filed
under and otherwise meets the requirements of COMAR
21.10.04, as that regulation implements the statutory provisions
regarding final agency action in contract claims for construction
contracts and appeal to the Board as set forth in §§ 15-211, 15-
215, 15-217 and 15-219 of the State Finance and Procurement
Article.  Cherry Hill, at page 26.  In reviewing the pertinent
statutes and regulations relating to timeliness, the Board held
that “[c]ontract claims for which notice was not submitted
during the regulatory time period are to be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction without consideration of prejudice.”
Cherry Hill, at pages 24-25.
The State Finance and Procurement Article (as it was in
effect in 1993) provides that a contract claim shall be submitted
in the time required under regulations adopted by the primary
10
procurement unit responsible for the procurement.  Md. State
Fin. and Proc. Code Ann. § 15-217(b)(1988).  Pursuant to that
statutory authority, the Board of Public Works promulgated
regulations in COMAR concerning the filing of claims by
contractors.  The pertinent provision, in effect in 1993, is as
follows:
COMAR 21.10.04.02.  Filing of Claim by
Contractor:
A
Unless a lesser period is prescribed
by law or by contract, a Contractor
shall file a written notice of a claim
relating to a contact with the
appropriate procurement officer
within thirty days after the basis for
the claim is known or should have
been known, whichever is earlier.
B.
[omitted]
C.
A notice of claim or a claim that is not filed
within the time prescribed in Regulation .02 of
this chapter shall be dismissed.
D.
Each procurement contract shall provide notice of
the time requirements of this regulation.
In accordance with COMAR 21.10.04.02(D), supra, the
Contract provides that a notice of claim be filed within a thirty
(30) day time frame.  Specifically, General Provision 5.14(A) of
the Contact provides:
The Contractor shall file a written notice of claim
for extension of time, equitable adjustment, extra
compensation, damages, or any other matter
(whether under or relating to this Contract) with
the procurement officer within 30 days after the
basis for the claim is known or should have been
known, whichever is earlier.
11
General Provision 5.14(d) of the Contract further advises
that a “notice of claim or a claim that is not filled within the
prescribed time shall be dismissed.”
From the perspective of the MSBCA, strict compliance with COMAR 21.10.04.02 - at the
procurement officer level - was a condition precedent to the establishment of a claim, and an
absolute jurisdictional prerequisite to any subsequent appellate jurisdiction of the MSBCA.
The Circuit Court for Baltimore City reversed the MSBCA action. The Court
questioned, but did not decide, the propriety of summary disposition without written
procedures.  The Court instead held  that, regardless of whether the MSBCA could proceed
without formal rules, the issue of timeliness, defined by the regulation in question as when
a contractor knew or should have known of its claim, was a question of fact.  As such, the
Circuit Court reasoned that the MSBCA could not render a summary disposition without a
fair hearing on the merits of the claim, including its timeliness. 
The Circuit Court, in turn, was reversed by the Court of Special Appeals. The
intermediate appellate court held that the filing of written notice within 30 days of discovery
was a mandatory requirement, and the  MSBCA therefore had no discretion to entertain
EMS’s appeal once it determined that the appeal was based on an untimely notice of claim.
IV.
We shall consider the questions presented in reverse order. At bottom, this case
involves interpretation of statutes and regulations.  In Mayor and City of Rockville v. Rylyns
Enterprises, Inc., 372 Md.. 514, 549-50, 814 A.2d 469, 490 (2002)(citing Mazor v.
12
Department of Correction, 279 Md. 355, 360-61, 369 A.2d 82, 86-87 (1977) we reiterated
the six principal tenets of statutory interpretation: 
[1] The cardinal rule of construction of a statute is to ascertain
and carry out the real intention of the Legislature. 
[2] The primary source from which we glean this intention is the
language of the statute itself. 
[3] In construing a statute, we accord the words their ordinary
and natural signification. 
[4]  If reasonably possible, a statute is to be read so that no
word, phrase, clause, or sentence is rendered surplusage or
meaningless. 
[5] Similarly, wherever possible an interpretation should be
given to statutory language which will not lead to absurd
consequences. 
[6] Moreover, if the statute is part of a general statutory scheme
or system, the sections must be read together to ascertain the
true intention of the Legislature. (Citations omitted). 
There is no doubt that the MSBCA is endowed fundamentally with the  power to
provide for the disposition of  contested cases by summary disposition in appropriate
circumstances.  Whether it has provided properly for the exercise of that power and
articulated the circumstances in which that disposition might be appropriate are at the core
of this case.  Md. Code (1974, 2001 Repl. Vol.), State Finance and Procurement Art., §15-
216(b) states:
15 The General Assembly amended § 10-210, along with other related provisions, in
1993 at the recommendation of the Commission to Revise the Administrative Procedure Act.
At that time, the last three mechanisms enumerated in § 10-210 , including summary
disposition, were added as potential dispositions of a contested case.  Although the
Commission recommended this amendment, the Commission Report sheds little light on the
reason for its addition, stating only that:
The Commission, in reviewing the current law on dispositions,
added several additional options available for disposing of
contested cases.  Testimony presented by the OAH [Office of
Administrative Hearings] indicated that these additional options
are widely used at present.
Report Of The Commission To Revise The Administrative Procedure Act (September 1,
1992) at 23. 
A close examination of the minutes of the Commission’s meetings reveals scant and
unilluminating  elaboration on this recommendation.
13
(b) Proceedings of Appeals Board. - The Appeals Board
shall conduct its proceedings in accordance with Title 10,
subtitle 2 of the State Government Article.
Maryland Code (1974, 1999 Repl Vol.), State Government Article, § 10-210  states:
Unless otherwise precluded by law, an agency or the
Office may dispose of a contested case by:
(1) stipulation;
(2) settlement;
(3) consent order;
(4) default;
(5) withdrawal;
(6) summary disposition; or
(7) dismissal. [15]
While acknowledging that § 10-210 allows for summary disposition,  Petitioner argues
that such disposition is “otherwise precluded by law” and cannot be utilized by an agency
against a citizen due to a procedural conflict between fundamental concepts of administrative
law and those of summary judgment jurisprudence.  The Petitioner points out that:
16  Md. Const., Art. IV.
14
Maryland Rule 2-501(e) provides that a trial court may grant
summary judgement when there is “no genuine dispute as to any
material fact” and the moving party is entitled to judgment “as
a matter of law.”  Amplifying on this, this Court has held that
the trial court may only make rulings as a matter of law; it
should “‘resolv[e] no disputed issues of fact.’”Put another way,
“‘[i]n considering a motion for summary judgment the Court
does not attempt to decide any issue of fact or credibility, but
only whether such issues exist...’”  All inferences must be
resolved against the party moving for summary judgment. This
deference to the opponent of a motion for summary judgment
continues at the appellate stage. (citations omitted).
This summary of the civil law of summary judgment applicable in our state’s Article IV16
courts is essentially correct.  Petitioner continues, however, that under the tenets of
administrative law:
[a]n agency’s decision is “reviewed in the light most favorable
to the agency,” because such decisions carry “a presumption of
validity.” Bulluck v. Pelham Wood Apts., 283 Md. 505, 513, 390
A.2d 1119, 1124(1978).  Accordingly, judicial review of the
agency decision is limited to determining “whether a reasoning
mind could have reached the factual conclusions reached by the
agency.”  Liberty Nursing Center, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health and
Mental Hygiene, 330 Md. 433, 443, 624 A.2d 941, 946
(1993)(citing Supervisor v. Asbury Methodist Home, 313 Md.
614, 626, 47 A.2d 190, 195(1988)).  Accord Restar v. State Bd.
of Educ., 284 Md. 537, 399 A.2d 255 (1979)(reviewing court
will affirm the administrative action when it concludes that a
reasoning mind reasonably could have reached the factual
conclusions which the agency has reached).  Further, “‘where
inconsistent inferences from the same evidence can be drawn, it
is for the agency to draw the inferences.’” Cortney v. Bd. of
Trustees of Maryland State Ret. Systems, 285 Md. 356, 362, 402
A.2d 885, 889 (1979)(quoting Bulluck v. Pelham Wood Apts.,
supra)(citation omitted).  See also A.H. Smith Sand & Gravel
Co. v. Dep’t of Water Resources, 270 Md. 303, 289 A.2d 920
17 As a preliminary matter, we point out that “[w]e review an administrative agency’s
decision under the same statutory standard as the Circuit Court.  Therefore, we reevaluate the
decision of the agency, not the decision of the lower court.” Gigeous v. E. Corr. Inst., 363
Md. 481, 495-96, 769 A.2d 912, 921(2001). See also Dep’t. of Health & Mental Hygiene v.
Campbell, 364 Md. 108, 123, 771 A.2d 1051, 1060(2001)(“it is the final decision maker at
the administrative level, not that of the reviewing court, that is subject to judicial review”).
18See Rochvarg, Arnold, Maryland Administrative Law, 111-132 (2001).
15
(1974)(reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for the
expertise of the agency in reviewing the agency’s decision.).
This is also a correct statement of law, as far as it goes. Petitioner argues that where the
agency is seeking summary judgment, which it equates with summary disposition within the
meaning of § 10-210(6), deference to the agency decision or action is in conflict with the
tenet of summary judgment jurisprudence that reasonable inferences be drawn in favor of the
non-moving party [contractor], and that therefore  summary judgment is an inappropriate
procedure, as it would not be reviewable on appeal in effect. A careful reading of Petitioner’s
argument, however, reveals that Petitioner is mixing the proverbial apples and oranges on
this record and the relevant statutes and regulations.
Petitioner’s argument fails to distinguish the various forms of judicial review of
administrative decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).17   In the APA, Md.
Code (1974, 1999 Repl. Vol.), State Government Art., § 10-222(h) sets forth six grounds
upon which a court can reverse or modify an agency decision if any substantial right of a
petitioner has been prejudiced.18  Section 10-222(h) states:
In a proceeding under this section, the court may:
(1) remand the case for further proceedings;
16
(2) affirm the final decision; or
(3) reverse or modify the decision if any
substantial right of the petitioner may have been
prejudiced because a finding, conclusion, or
decision:
(i) is unconstitutional;
(ii) exceeds the statutory authority or
jurisdiction of the final decision maker;
(iii) results from an unlawful procedure;
(iv) is affected by any other error of law;
(v) is unsupported by competent, material,
and substantial evidence in light of the
entire record as submitted; or 
(vi) is arbitrary or capricious.
It is true, as Petitioner sets forth, that an agency’s findings of fact and inferences made
in the course of rendering  findings of fact are given deferential treatment under “substantial
evidence” review [APA, § 10-222(h)(3)(v), supra].  Bd. of Physician Quality Assurance v.
Banks, 354 Md. 59, 67-68, 729 A.2d 376, 380-81 (1999);  Travers v. Baltimore Police Dep’t,
115 Md. App. 395, 420, 693 A.2d 378, 390 (1997).  Under summary judgment jurisprudence,
however, it is not a  procedural vehicle to be used to determine factual disputes, but rather
to determine whether there is a dispute over a  material fact or facts that should be tried.
Hartford Ins. Co. v. Mannor Inn of Bethesda, Inc., 335 Md. 135, 144-45, 642 A.2d 219, 224
(1994);  Di Grazia v. County Executive, 288 Md. 437, 445,  418 A.2d 1191, 1196 (1980).
Maryland Rule 2-501(e) instructs that summary judgment is appropriate “where there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the party in whose favor judgment is entered is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  Whether summary judgment is properly granted as
19 We point out that we can, and will, also review an agency’s action under  Md. Code
(1974, 1999 Repl. Vol.), State Government Art., § 10-222(h)(3)(iii) that the decision results
from unlawful procedure.  See infra.
17
a matter of law is a question of law.19  The standard for appellate review of a summary
judgment is whether it is “legally correct.”  Sheets v. Brethern Mut.  Ins. Co., 342 Md. 634,
638-39, 679 A.2d 540, 542 (1996); Heat & Power Corp. v. Air Prod. & Chemicals, Inc., 320
Md. 584, 591-92, 578 A.2d 1202, 1206 (1990).  This is the same standard of review we apply
to the question of the legal correctness of an administrative agency’s decision.  See Banks,
354 Md. at 67-69, 729 A.2d at 380-81. As a result, there is no significant conflict between
the deference given to factual determinations made by an agency and the principles of
summary judgment.  Whether the same may be said for summary disposition practice at the
administrative agency level will be discussed infra.   In any event, we shall not answer
Question 3 because of the reasons stated in our following analysis of Question 2.
V.
Petitioner next argues, again applying principles of summary judgment jurisprudence,
that the   MSBCA erred in dismissing EMS’s claim where there is documentary evidence
showing that there were disputes of material fact, i.e., what was the trigger date for tolling
the notice of claim period and whether EMS’s claim was timely.  Were this case to be
scrutinized as a summary judgment action at law, we would agree.  
As we observed, supra, the purpose of summary judgment is to determine whether
there are facts in dispute that must be resolved through a more formal dispute resolution
process, a trial on the merits.  As noted, it is not the purpose of summary judgment to resolve
20 See supra at n.13.
21 In Article IV courts, under modern rules of civil procedure, the question of whether
a statute [of limitations] which operates as a condition precedent to the formation of a claim
is more appropriately treated as a Rule 2-322(b)(2) motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.  Where  “matters outside the pleadings are presented
to and not excluded by the court [such as affidavits], [a §2-322(b)(2) motion to dismiss]
should  be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 2-501."
Md. Rule 2-322(c); Freeburger v. Bichell, 135 Md. App. 680, 685, 763 A.2d 1126, 1229
(2000); Hrehorovich v. Harbor Hosp. Ctr., 93 Md. App. 772, 782-83, 614 A.2d 1021, 1026
(1992).  As noted, however, this is not the case in all circumstances. See Brown v. Dermer,
357 Md. 344, 355-56, 744 A.2d 47, 53 (2000).
18
issues of material fact.  Despite this principle, the MSBCA made fifteen findings of fact,
including a determination of when EMS’s notice should have been given, a determination
which differed from that advanced by either of the parties.  Furthermore, because  review of
the grant of summary judgment  is de novo, there would exist potentially  the question of
whether the State is estopped or otherwise waived the notice requirement by its entry into the
20 November 1997 Mutual Termination Agreement.20  Finally, the regulation in question,
COMAR 21.10.04.02, requires that “a contractor shall file a written notice of a claim relating
to a contract with the appropriate procurement officer within 30 days after the basis for the
claim is known or should have been known, whichever is earlier.”  We consistently have held
that “summary judgment generally is inappropriate when matters - such as knowledge, intent
or motive - that ordinarily are reserved for resolution by the fact-finder are essential elements
of the plaintiff’s case or defense.”  Brown v. Dermer, 357 Md. 344, 355-56, 744 A.2d 47, 53
(2000).  Were the present case controlled by our summary judgment jurisprudence, this
certainly would appear to be such a case where summary judgment would be inappropriate.21
As a practical matter, however, this question, as well as most of what we thus far have said
22 In footnote 3 of its decision, the MSBCA observed that “[t]he word ‘disposition’
is used rather than ‘judgment’ because the Board is not a court and has no equitable power
or equitable jurisdiction.”  We note as an aside, however, that the initial draft of House Bill
877, Chapter 59, Laws 1993 contained the term “Summary Judgment.” The Commission To
Revise The Administrative Procedure Act, at page 9 of the minutes of it’s 16 June 1992
meeting, changed this language to “Summary Disposition.”  No explanation for the change
appears in the records of the Commission or the Legislative history of the bill. 
19
in this opinion in response to Petitioner’s arguments, is ultimately not dispositive of this case,
though it may be potentially  relevant  upon remand.
The administrative action under review sub judice was decided ostensibly under the
grant to the MSBCA of the power to enter a summary disposition, not summary judgment,
in a contested case.  APA, § 10-210, does not describe the modality of action as summary
judgment, nor does the MSBCA’s decision in the present case, except in a footnote.22  The
question thus becomes whether the MSBCA properly implemented the ability to grant
summary disposition, and, if so, whether it properly granted it in this case.  A more puzzling
question is how it is that we are supposed to make that determination.
APA, § 10-206(b),  states that “[e]ach agency may adopt regulations to govern
procedures under this subtitle and practice before the agency in contested cases.”  The
enabling statute for the MSBCA is a bit more direct and specific.  Md. Code (1974, 2002
Repl. Vol.), State Finance and Procurement Art., § 15-210 states:
In accordance with Title 10, Subtitle 1 of the State
Government Article [the APA], the Appeals Board shall adopt
regulations that provide for informal, expeditious, and
inexpensive resolution of appeals before the Appeals Board.
23   Chapter 59, Laws 1993 (H.B. 877) intended that each agency so authorized
promulgate their own procedural rules.  Page 4 of the 1 September 1992  Report of the
Commission To Revise The Administrative Procedure Act states that:
Unlike the Model [State Administrative Procedure] Act, which
includes a provision addressing every conceivable procedural
issue, Maryland’s APA should create a statutory framework for
the administrative process, addressing only the most important
and fundamental policy issues.  The procedural fine points of
administrative practice are more appropriately addressed in rules
or regulations which can be changed more easily and frequently
than can a statute.
Apparently the Legislature concurred, in the main, with this approach for all covered State
agencies (save the Department of the  Environment - see note 31, infra.) because it did not
endeavor in the legislation to establish “the procedural fine points of administrative
procedure,” leaving that to the agencies to accomplish through written regulation.
24  MSBCA procedural regulations are set forth in COMAR.  COMAR 21.02.02.03
Regulations and Procedure states: “The administrative procedures and regulations of the
Appeals Board appear under Subtitle 10, Administrative and Civil Remedies, of this title.”
See COMAR 21.10.06.   
25 Rochvarg,  at 118.
26 Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 74 S.Ct. 499, 98 L.Ed 681 (1954)(federal
(continued...)
20
(Emphasis added). 23  We have not found, nor has either party directed us to, any regulation
of the MSBCA that provides for summary disposition procedures.24
Where an agency decision flows from an unlawful procedure, that decision is subject
to reversal or modification by the courts.   APA, §10-222(h)(3)(iii).25  We have recognized
this principal of our State’s administrative law as being similar to the federal Accardi
doctrine.26  MTA v. King, 369 Md. 274, 286-87, 799 A.2d 1246, 1252-53 (2002). See Pollock
26(...continued)
administrative agency decision is subject to invalidation because of the agency’s “failure to
exercise its own discretion contrary to existing valid regulation”).
27 Rochvarg, Arnold, Maryland Administrative Law, at 154-55.
21
v. Patuxent Institution Bd. of Review, __ Md. __ (2003) (No. 106, September Term,
2002)(filed ___ May 2003)(expressly adopting for purposes of Maryland administrative law
a version of the Accardi doctrine).  Contrary to the conduct of the MSBCA,  procedural rules
must be promulgated by formal rulemaking and cannot be made in ad hoc fashion through
adjudication.   Under §10-101(g)(1), “the Maryland APA does not follow the federal APA’s
exceptions to the rulemaking procedures [ 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(A)&(B)], and indeed
expressly rejects most of the federal APA exceptions.  Under the Maryland APA, an agency’s
organizational rules, procedural rules, interpretive rules and statements of policy all must go
through the same procedures as required for legislative rules.” 27  While an agency has some
discretion with regard to policy questions whether to proceed by regulation or by decisional
rule, Maryland Ass’n of Health Maint. Org. v. Health Serv. Cost Review Comm’n , 356 Md.
581,600, 741 A.2d 483, 493 (1999), in Maryland, this discretion does not exist as to
28A regulation is defined by APA, § 10-101(g) as follows:
(1) “Regulation” means a statement or an amendment or repeal
of a statement that:
(i) 
has general application;
(ii) 
has future effect;
(iii)    Is adopted by a unit to:
1. Detail or carry out a law that the unit      
administers;
2.  Govern organization of the unit;
3.  Govern the procedure of the unit; or
4.  Govern practice before the unit; and
(iv) is an any form, including:
1.  A guideline;
2.  A rule;
3.  A standard;
4.  A statement of interpretation; or
5.  A statement of policy.
 
29  While both Howlin and the case sub judice involve circumstances where the agency
in question failed to promulgate, through rulemaking, procedural rules, as opposed to agency
policy determinations,  in reaching this decision we distinguish factually the case sub judice
from Howlin.  In Howlin, we found that, although the County Planning Commission failed
to promulgate procedural rules, no due process right was violated by that omission.  That
determination is fairly limited to the specific facts of Howlin, a case to which the State APA
did not apply, and is not applicable to the case sub judice.  At issue in Howlin was the fact
that the Planning Commission had no rules of  procedure for a unique, one-of-a-kind hearing
re-opening a prior Commission determination that subsequently was found to be in error.
While the Planning Commission announced procedural rules, which were agreed to,
immediately prior to the hearing, it failed to announce what burden of proof would have to
be met.  We held that, while the failure to have rules in place violated the Commission’s
enabling statute,  no injury or prejudice resulted from the failure to announce a standard
because the developer/applicant was unable to meet even the lowest burden, that of
preponderance of the evidence.  We did not hold, and Howlin does not stand for the
proposition, that an agency can avoid its obligation to promulgate procedural rules by merely
(continued...)
22
procedural matters.28  As we pointed out in Calvert County v. Howlin, 364 Md. 301, 322, 772
A.2d 1209, 1221 (2001), in a non-APA context:29
29(...continued)
announcing them prior to proceeding in a contested case.
30 Such terminology, however, need not be construed as mandatory if the context
indicates otherwise. People’s Counsel v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n., 52 Md. App 715, 720-21, 451
A.2d 045, 948 (1982); Resetar v. State Bd. of Educ., 284 Md. 537, 547, 399 A.2d 225 (1979);
(continued...)
23
Rules for the transaction of business of public agencies are
intended to be normative principles formally adopted by the
agency in written form, in accordance with whatever procedural
requirements may apply, and, upon request, made available in
advance to persons dealing with the agency.  Only then can there
be some assurance against arbitrary and capricious conduct on
the part of the agency.
Here, the MSBCA was directed by statute that it “shall adopt regulations,” yet it failed to do
so with regard to summary disposition.  In  Tranen v. Aziz, 59 Md. App. 528, 534-35, 476
A.2d 1170, 1173 (1984), the Court of Special Appeals correctly observed that:
[t]he term "shall" is presumed mandatory on the parties,
denoting "an imperative obligation inconsistent with the
exercise of discretion." Johnson v. State, 282 Md. 314, 321, 384
A.2d 709 (1978) citing Bright v. Unsat. C. & J. Fund Bd., 275
Md. 165, 169, 338 A.2d 248 (1975). Accord In re DeWayne H.,
290 Md. 401, 404, 430 A.2d 76 (1981); In re James S., 286 Md.
702, 706-08, 410 A.2d 586 (1980) quoting State v. Hicks, 285
Md. 310, 334, 403 A.2d 356 (1979); People's Counsel v. Pub.
Serv. Comm'n, 52 Md.App. 715, 719-20, 451 A.2d 945 (1982).
"Shall" and "must" have been employed synonymously
to foreclose discretion. Resnick v. Board of Elections, 244 Md.
55, 62, 222 A.2d 385 (1966). The term "must" imposes a
positive, absolute duty, see County Com'rs v. Gibson, 36 Md.
229, 236-37 (1872), and has been defined as "compulsion  or
obligation" or "requirement or prerequisite." American Heritage
Dictionary, 865 (1976).  [30]
30(...continued)
Blumenthal v. Clerk of Cir. Ct., 278 Md. 398, 408, 365 A.2d 279 (1976). Such is not the case
here because the absence of written procedures raises issues of notice, fundamental fairness,
and the standard of review.
24
As a result, the MSBCA violated the procedures set forth in its enabling statute when it
proceeded to grant a summary disposition in the present case in the absence of adopted rules
of procedure. 
The SHA argues, and the Court of Special Appeals agreed, that the issue of the
MSBCA’s failure to promulgate rules was not preserved for review as EMS failed to raise
the issue during the proceedings before the MSBCA. Judicial review of administrative
decisions generally is limited to the issues  raised before the agency.  Mayor and Council of
Rockville v. Woodmont Country Club, 348 Md. 572, 582, n.3, 705 A.2d 301, 305, n.3
(1998)(citing Ins. Comm’r of the State of Maryland v. Equitable Life Assurance.  Soc’y. of
the United States, 339 Md. 596, 634, 664 A.2d 862, 881 (1995)).   We reach this issue,
however, not because EMS raised it on appeal, but rather because it is an integral, and thus
unavoidable, component of our determination of  the properly raised issue of whether the
MSBCA’s grant of summary disposition was appropriate in this case.   This is because the
MSBCA’s failure to adopt pertinent procedural rules in the case sub judice interferes with
the ability of the courts to perform their constitutional function of review. Criminal Injuries
Comp. Bd. v. Gould, 273 Md. 486, 500-503, 331 A.2d 55, 65-66 (1975).
31  Interestingly,  House Bill 877, Chapter 59, Laws 1993 did establish detailed
procedural rules for summary disposition for the Department of the Environment, codified
at Maryland Code (1974, 1996 Repl. Vol.), Environment Article, § 1-606, which states in
relevant part:
(d)   Motion for summary decision. - (1) Any party to a
contested case hearing, including the Department, may file at
any time a motion for a summary decision on all or part of an
action on the ground that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and that the party is entitled to a decision as a
matter of law.
(2) The motion, any response and the decision of
the administrative law judge or other official conducting the
hearing shall comply with the requirements of Maryland Rule of
Civil Procedure 2-501. (Emphasis added).
Section 1-106 also sets forth, among other things, the rules for partial summary disposition.
See also COMAR 28.02.01.16 (C) & (D), applicable to the Office of Administrative
Hearings.
25
  As we pointed out, supra, APA, § 10-222(h) sets forth six grounds upon which a
court may reverse or modify an agency decision if any substantial right of a petitioner has
been prejudiced, among which are any finding, conclusion, or decision which results from
an unlawful procedure, and any finding, conclusion, or decision which is affected by any
other error of law.  In the case sub judice, the MSBCA has failed to define what a “summary
disposition” is, or to set forth by what standards and under what conditions it is appropriate
that a summary disposition may be sought or granted, or  what procedures will be utilized by
the MSBCA to make such a determination.  Absent such standards, procedures, and
definitions, the courts cannot make a determination as to whether, in application, an error of
law or procedure otherwise occurred at the administrative level. 31  We  only may reverse the
32  Were the MSBCA to adopt rules substantially consistent with summary judgment
principles as employed by the civil courts, there could be little doubt as to the propriety of
such an approach.  Rules that facilitate the summary disposition of contested cases beyond
those amenable to the application of those principles, however, risk raising significant
questions of the proper application of the APA and other State administrative law principles.
26
decision of the MSBCA on the ground that it utilized an unlawful procedure by not adopting
relevant procedures as  required under its enabling statute,  Md. Code (1974, 2002 Repl.
Vol.), State Finance and Procurement Art., § 15-210.  Thus, while there can be no doubt that
APA, § 10-210 permits agencies to dispose of cases by summary disposition, we hold that
the MSBCA is required to promulgate proper descriptions and procedures through formal
rulemaking before it may do so henceforth.32
VI
Concluding that the MSBCA utilized an unlawful procedure to dispose of EMS’s
claim, we could end our analysis. In this instance, however, because a substantive
determination was made by the MSBCA which we regard as being potentially  erroneous in
another regard, we shall comment on that as well. 
As discussed, supra, Md. Code (1974, 2002 Repl. Vol.), State Finance and
Procurement Art., §15-217(b) mandates that a contract claim “shall be submitted within the
time required under regulations adopted by the primary procurement unit responsible for the
procurement.”  Pursuant to this statute, the procurement regulations require that “a contractor
shall file a written notice of a claim relating to a contract with the appropriate procurement
officer within 30 days after the basis for the claim is known or should have been known,
33 Effective October 1, 1996, the  30-day notice of claim requirement regulation was
incorporated into the statutory framework.  Md. Code (1974, 2002 Repl. Vol.), State Finance
and Procurement Art., §15-219(a).
34 See COMAR 21.10.06.05, Dismissal For Lack of Jurisdiction:
A motion addressed to the jurisdiction of the Appeals
Board shall be filed promptly.  A hearing on the motion shall be
afforded on application of either party, unless the Appeals Board
determines that its decision on th motion will be deferred
pending a hearing on both the merits of the appeal and the
motion.  The Appeals Board shall have the right at any time and
on its own motion to raise the issue of its jurisdiction to proceed
with a particular case, and shall do so by an appropriate order,
affording the parties an opportunity to be heard.
35 Whether called summary judgment or summary disposition, what the MSBCA in
fact did was exercise its jurisdiction for the purposes of determining its jurisdiction.
Highfield Water Co. v. Washington County Sanitary Dist., 295 Md. 410, 415-16, 45 A.2d
371, 374 (1983).
27
whichever is earlier.”  COMAR 21.10.04.02 (A). 33  These regulations also state that “[a]
notice of claim or [an explanation of] a claim that is not filed within the time prescribed in
Regulation.02 shall be dismissed” by the procurement officer.  COMAR 21.10.04.02(C).
The MSBCA, relying entirely on its own prior reasoning in Cherry Hill Constr., Inc.,
MSBCA No. 2056, 5 MSBCA ¶ 549 (1999),  asserted that this requirement is a condition
precedent to its exercise of jurisdiction, and dismissed EMS’s appeal on those grounds.34
Such an analysis appears incorrect. 35, 
The MSBCA decision took  the position that it had no subject matter jurisdiction
where a condition precedent to the establishment of a claim had failed to occur, following
its own reasoning in Cherry Hill.  To understand the MSBCA’s reasoning requires reciting
36 COMAR 21.07.02.05
37 We note that COMAR 21.10.04.02 B contains a shorter time period than that
proscribed by Md. Code (1974, 2001 Repl. Vol.), State Finance and Procurement Art., § 15-
219(b).  An agency may not shorten the time provided for by the Legislature. 
28
the statutes, the interpretation of which the MSBCA’s Cherry Hill action was based.  Md.
Code (1974, 2001 Repl. Vol.), State Finance and Procurement Art., §15-217(b) states in
relevant part:
(b) Time for submission. - Except a provided in § 15-219
of this subtitle, a protest or contract claim shall be submitted
within the time required under regulations adopted by the
primary procurement unit responsible for the procurement.
Md. Code (1974, 2001 Repl. Vol.), State Finance and Procurement Art., § 15-219 states in
relevant part:
(a) Notice of claim must be filed within 30 days. - Except
to the extent a shorter period is prescribed by regulation
governing differing site conditions, [36] a contractor shall file a
written notice of a claim relating to a procurement contract for
construction within 30 days after the basis for the claim is
known or should have been known.
(b) Explanation of claim. - Unless extended by the unit,
within 90 days after submitting a notice of a contract claim
under a procurement contract for construction, a contractor shall
submit to the unit a written explanation that states:
(1) the amount of the contract claim;
(2) the facts on which the contract claim is based;
and
(3) all relevant data and correspondence that may
substantiate the contract claim.
In response to these statutes, COMAR 21.10.04.02 was promulgated, 37 which states in
relevant part:
29
A.  Unless a lesser period is prescribed by law or
contract, a contractor shall file a written notice of a claim
relating to a contract with the appropriate procurement officer
within 30 days after the basis for the claim is known or should
have been known, whichever is earlier.
B.  Contemporaneously with or within 30 days of the
filing of a notice of a claim, but no later than the date that final
payment is made, a contractor shall submit the claim to the
appropriate procurement officer.  On conditions the procurement
officer considers satisfactory to the unit, the procurement officer
may extend the time in which a contractor, after timely
submitting a notice of claim, must submit a contract claim under
a procurement contract for construction.  An example of when
a procurement officer may grant an extension includes situations
in which the procurement officer finds that a contemporaneous
or timely cost quantification following the filing of the notice of
claim is impossible or impractical.  The claim shall be in writing
and shall contain:
(1) An explanation of the claim, including
reference to all contact provisions upon which it
is based;
(2) The amount of the claim;
(3) The facts upon which the claim is based;
(4) All pertinent data and correspondence that the
contractor relies upon to substantiate the claim;
and
(5) A certification by a senior official, officer, or
general partner of the contractor or the
subcontractor, as applicable, that, to the best of
the person’s knowledge and belief, the claim is
made in good faith, supporting data are accurate
and complete, and the amount requested
accurately reflects the contract adjustment for
which the person believes the procurement agency
is liable.
C.  A notice of claim or a claim that is not filed within the
time prescribed in Regulation .20 of this chapter shall be
dismissed.
38 We point out in passing that the discretion exercised in COMAR 21.10.04.02(B)
additionally  would be subject to review under the “arbitrary or capricious” standard of APA,
§ 10-222(h)(3)(vi).
39 But see Peoples Counsel v. Pub. Serv. Comm’s., 52 Md. App. 715, 720-21, 451
A.2d 945, 948 (1982).  See also Tranen v. Aziz, 59 Md. App. 528,  476 A.2d 1170,(1984).
30
D.  Each procurement contract shall provide notice of the
time requirements of this regulation.
The MSBCA in Cherry Hill  compared sections A and B of COMAR 21.10.04.02 and noted
its view that it possessed considerably more discretion when determining whether a claim is
filed timely under section B than under section A.  It then concluded that “untimely notice
is sometimes a jurisdictional issue, and sometimes a defense to a claim, depending upon
which clause is controlling - - the 30-day requirement for filing notice of a claim is
jurisdictional; documentation of that claim is more a matter of discretion on the part of the
Agency and the Board, and therefore falls more towards a defense to a claim.”38 Cherry Hill
at ¶ 458-59.  We reject this conclusion.
Relying on its reasoning in Cherry Hill, the MSBCA in the case sub judice concluded
that the notice requirement was a condition precedent to the existence of a claim, and thus
to its exercise of jurisdiction.  The MSBCA appears to reason that  COMAR 21.10.04.02 (A)
may not be waived expressly, and therefore a failure to make a timely claim necessarily
precludes all circumstances where the existence of a valid claim might arise, and also
prevents the creation of subject matter jurisdiction.39  The MSBCA overlooks, however, the
possibility of equitable estoppel.
31
In  Chandlee v. Shockley, 219 Md. 493, 498-503, 150 A.2d 438, 441-43 (1959),
involving a limitations defense to a negligence suit against the executor of an alleged
tortfeasor’s estate, we noted:
In an ordinary statute of limitation, the remedy may be waived.
On the other hand, most courts have held that if the statute
creates a new cause of action with a time limit as a condition
precedent, such limit cannot be extended by waiver or estoppel.
The cases are collected in the notes and annotations in 77 A. L.
R. 1044, 1050;130 A. L. R. 8, 15; 15 A. L. R. 2d 500; 24 A. L.
R. 2d 1413, 1418. Some states do not recognize the distinction
between the two types of statute -- see note in 67 A. L. R. 1070,
1074 -- and some writers think the distinction is unsound. See
63 Harv. L. Rev. 1177, 1186, 1234. 
Even where the distinction is recognized and the statute
involved is substantive and creates the right rather than limits
the remedy, the rule that the controlling period of time may not
be tolled never has been held to be immutable under all
circumstances. 
In Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hallowell, 94 Md. App. 444, 456-59, 617 A.2d 1134, 1139-41
(1993), the Court of Special Appeals set forth in some detail the Maryland decisions since
Chandlee, and correctly concluded that a statute of limitations which is substantive and
creates the right [a condition precedent] “can be waived if there is sufficient evidence of
inducement, estoppel, fraud or waiver.” 94 Md. App. at 459, 617 A.2d at 1141. Because a
condition precedent can be met by estoppel, and estoppel is a factual matter which can be
determined only upon a full hearing on the merits,  it is inappropriate to view a statute [of
limitations] which exists as a condition precedent to a claim in a summary judgment context
to be a matter of subject matter jurisdiction to which issues of estoppel and waiver may not
40   A condition precedent is in effect an element necessary to the existence of a claim.
See note 23, supra.  We reiterate, therefore, that if summary disposition in administrative
practice is akin to summary judgment under the Maryland Rules, then summary disposition
is an inappropriate vehicle for the resolution of this dispute.   The requirement in question
sub judice  requires that a claim be made within 30 days of the time the contractor knew or
should have know that a claim existed, whichever is earlier.  As we pointed out, supra,
“summary judgment generally is inappropriate when matters - such as knowledge, intent or
motive - that ordinarily are reserved for resolution by the fact-finder are essential elements
of the plaintiff’s case or defense.”  Brown, 357 Md.at 355-56, 744 A.2d at 53.   
32
be considered [under Maryland administrative law].  We conclude, therefore, that  the issue
of untimely notice would be a defense and a factual question to be determined during the
course of a full hearing on the merits, and  not a jurisdictional bar to the pursuit of a
contractor’s claim.40
 As a result, we further conclude that the MSBCA had jurisdiction to hear this claim
on the merits.  As we pointed out in  Board of License Comm’rs  v. Corridor Wine, Inc., 361
Md. 403, 417-18, 761 A.2d 916, 923 (2000):
Judge J. Dudley Digges for this Court, in First Federated
Commodity Trust Corp. v. Commissioner, 272 Md. 329, 335,
322 A.2d 539, 543 (1974), set forth the general test for
determining the subject matter jurisdiction of a tribunal: "If by
that law which defines the authority of the court, a judicial body
is given the power to render a judgment over that class of cases
within which a particular one falls, then its action cannot be
assailed for want of subject matter jurisdiction." See also Board
of Nursing v. Nechay, 347 Md. 396, 405-407, 701 A.2d 405,
410-411 (1997). Art. 2B of the Maryland Code clearly gives the
Board the power to render a decision over the class of cases
within which the present case falls. 
Simply because a statutory provision directs a court or an
adjudicatory agency to decide a case in a particular way, if
certain circumstances are shown, does not create an issue going
41 See also COMAR 21.02.02.02 Jurisdiction:
The Appeals Board shall have jurisdiction to hear and
decide all disputes arising under a contract with any State
agency, or as a result of a breach of a contract with any State
agency, or as a result of a protest relating to the award of a
contract with any State agency except for architectural services
or engineering services contracts entered into pursuant to
Subtitle 12 of this title.  The Appeals Board has no jurisdiction
over labor disputes or a contract claim relating to a lease of real
property.
33
to the court's or agency's subject matter jurisdiction. There have
been numerous cases in this Court involving the situation where
a trial court or an adjudicatory agency has jurisdiction over the
subject matter, but where a statute directs the court or agency,
under certain circumstances, to exercise its jurisdiction in a
particular way, or to rule in favor of a respondent, or to dismiss
the case, and the tribunal erroneously refuses to do so because
of an error of statutory interpretation or an error of fact. In these
situations, this Court has regularly held that the matter did not
concern the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court or the
agency. [Citations omitted].
The jurisdiction of the MSBCA is set forth in Md. Code (1974, 2002 Repl. Vol.) State
Finance and Procurement Ar., §15-211(a)41 as follows:
(a) Jurisdiction - The Appeals Board shall have
jurisdiction to hear and decide all appeals arising from the final
action of a unit:
(1) on a protest relating to the formation of a procurement
contract; or
(2) except for a contract claim relating to a lease of real
property, on a contract claim concerning:
(i)
breach;
(ii) 
performance;
(iii) 
modification; or
34
(iv) 
termination.
The administrative statute of limitations pertinent to appeals to the MSBCA is contained in
Md. Code (1974, 2002 Repl. Vol.), State Finance and Procurement Art., §15-220, which
states:
(a) Appeal of final action - Except for a contract claim
related to a lease for real property, a bidder or offeror, a
prospective bidder or offeror, or a contractor may appeal the
final action of a unit to the Appeals Board.
(b) Time for filing - An appeal under this section shall be
filed:
(1) for a protest, within 10 days afer receipt of a
final action; and
(2) for a contract claim, within 30 days after
receipt of the notice of a final action.  
By statute and regulation,  the M SBCA is granted jurisdiction to hear all contract disputes
“arising under a contract with any State agency” filed with the MSBCA within 30 days after
the contractor is in receipt of the notice of a final action.  EMS’s appeal was timely filed. The
MSBCA had jurisdiction to hear that appeal on the merits.  We conclude that  the statute of
limitations in question here is not an issue of subject matter jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL
APPEALS REVERSED; CASE REMANDED
TO THAT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO
AFFIRM 
THE 
JUDGMENT 
OF 
THE
CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY.
COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN THE
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE
PAID BY THE STATE OF MARYLAND.