1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: S ep te m

be r 27, 201 6 4 N O. 34, 486 5 M IR A C ON SU LT IN G, IN C . , a 6 New Mex ic o Co rpo ra tio n, 7 Pl ai nt iff

-Ap pe ll an t, 8 v. 9 BOARD OF EDUCATI ON, 10 ALBUQUE RQUE PUBLI C SCHOO LS, 11 Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee. 12 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 13 N an cy J. F ra nc hi ni , D ist ri ctJu dg e 14 Bingham , H urst & Apodaca, P. C. 15 W ay ne E. Bingham 16 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 17 fo r Appe llant 18 Mo dr al l, Sp erl in g, Ro eh l, Harr is & Si sk , P.A. 19 Arthur D. Melendres 20 Za chary

L. McCorm ick 21 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 22 for Appellee1 OPIN ION

2 BUS TAM AN TE, Judge. 3 { 1} Mira Consulting , I nc. a ppeal s t h e d i sm issal of its com plaint for declaratory 4 j udgm en t. W e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt th at New Me xic o’ s P ro cure m en t C ode 5 does not apply

here and that di sm issal u n der Rule 1-012(B)( 6) NM RA wa s 6 ap pr op ria te . W e th eref or e aff irm. 7 BACKGRO UND 8 { 2} Mi ra

Co nsul tin g, I nc . ( Mi ra ) is a f or -p ro fi t N ewMe xic o c or por at ionpr ovi din g 9 dental services prim arily in Albuquerque. A lbuq uerque Public Schools (APS ) issued 1 0 a “ R e qu e s tf

o r I n f o rm a t i o n ” ( R F I ) s o l i c i t i n g i n f o rm a t i o n ab o u t“ d e n t a l h ea lth 11 pr ovi de rs w ho ar e int er es te d [i n] de liv er ing dir ec t se rv ic es in A PS f or the 201 4- 2015 12 [s ] ch ool [ y ] ear. ” T hr ough the pr ogr am , suc ce ssf ul app lic an ts w oul d be pe rm itt ed to 13 provide dent al services in A PS schoo ls. The RFI stated that “ [a] ll services perf orm ed 14 pe r ana w ar d f

or thi s RFI m

ust be pe rf orm ed a t no co st t o A PS
. S uc ce ssf ul a ppl ic an ts 15 will b e d i r e c t e d t o bi l l M e di c a i d, o t he r t hi r d part y

p a y e r s or

p r ov i de s e rvi ces 16 pro[] bono .” 17 { 3} Mira r espond ed to the RFI. Thre e o ther d ental service prov iders also sub m itted 18 inform ation. A fter f

our reviewe rs s co red ea ch response, Mira and Sm iles for N ew 19 Me xic o K ids w er e se le ct ed as pr ovi de rs . A lth oughMi ra w as “ aw ar de d” six ty -e igh t2

1 sc hool s and Sm ile s fo r N ew Me xic o K ids w as aw ar de d thi rty sc hool s, Mi ra f ile d abid 2 pr o t es t with AP S’ s procurem ent divis ion pu rsuant to Section 13-1-17 2 of Ne w 3 Mexi co ’s Procure m ent Code, N MSA1978 , §§ 13-1-28 to -199 (1984, as am ended 4 through 2015 ). The bid protest wa s based in part on th e d i s t ri b u tion o f elem entary 5 schools and high schools betwee n Mira and Sm iles for N ewMexico Kids, as w ell as 6 pr oxi m ity

of the sc hool s to e ac h c om

pa ny ’ s “ de nta l ho m e. ” A PS re spon de d to the bid 7 protest by

stating th at t h e p ro test procedures in the Procurem ent Code we re 8 inappli cable beca

use the Procurem ent Code does not apply to tr ansactions in which 9 APS d oe s n ot ex pe nd an y fun ds
. 10 { 4} Mira then filed a com plaint for de cl ar at ory

j udgm ent requesting an order 11 de cl ar ing tha t the RF I w as su bjec t to th e Pr oc ur em en t C ode
. A ft er ahe ar ing on a 12 m oti on t o di sm iss , the dis tr ic t c ourt a gr ee d w ithA PS that the P ro cure m en t C ode did 13 not appl y a nd d is m issed

the c om pla int f or f ai lur e to s ta te ac la im

und er Ru le 1- 14 01 2( B)(6 ). Mi ra ap pe al s. 15 DISC US SION 16 { 5} Our rev ie w of

st atut or y co ns tru ct io n q ue st io ns is de no vo . Se e P ub. Se rv . Co

. 17 of N.M . v. N.M . Pub. Util. C

omm ’n , 1999 -N MS C- 040, ¶ 14, 128 N
. M. 309 , 992 P
. 2d 18 860. I n c onstru ing astatut e, w e se ek to “ de te rm ine and g ive e ff ec t to the int en t of

the3

1 [L ] egislature.” Id

. ¶ 18 (internal quot ation m arks and citation om itted). W e ar e guided 2 by c om m on p ri nc ipl es of

statut or y c onstru ct ion , inc lud ing the f oll ow ing : 3 [( 1 ) ] T h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f a s t a tu t e i s t h e p r i m a ry i n d i c a t orof 4 le gi sl at iv e in te nt . 5 [(2) ] Courts are to give the w ords used in the statute their ordinary 6 m ean in g u nl es s t he [L] eg is la tu re i nd ic at es a di ffer en t i nt en t. 7 [(3)] The court will not read into a statute or ordinance language which 8 is no t t he re, p art ic ul arl y if i t m ak es sen se as wri tt en . 9 Id

. (al te rat io n, i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s, an d c it at io ns om it te d)
. 10 { 6} A lth oughthe “ pla in m eanin g r ule” is agui din g pr inc ipl e, “ [i ] ts b eg uil ing 11 sim pli ci ty m ay m as k ahos t of

r ea sons w hy

astatut e, appare ntl y

c le ar a nd 12 un am bi gu ou s on it s fa ce, m ay

foron e rea so n o r an ot he r gi ve ris e to leg it im at e (i .e., 13 nonfr i v olou s) differ ences of opinion concerning the statute’s m eaning.” State v. 14 Sm ith , 2004 -N MS C- 032, ¶ 9, 136 N
. M. 372, 98 P. 3d 1022 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks 15 an d c itatio n om itt ed ). T he re fo re , “ [t ] he pla in m ea nin g rule m

ust y ie ld o n oc ca sio n to 16 an intentio n otherwise discerned in term s of equity , le gislat i v e h istory , or other 17 sources.” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)
. 18 { 7} Sect i o n 1 3-1-30(A) addresses the applicabilityof the Pr ocurem ent Code. I t 19 pr ovi de s th at

“ [e ] xc ep t a s othe rw ise pr ovi de d in th e Pr oc ur em en t C ode , tha t c ode 20 sha ll ap pl y to ev er

y e xpe ndi tur e by

state a ge nc ie s and l oc al pub lic bod ie s f or the 21 pr oc ur em en t o f it em s o f ta ng ib le pe rs on al pr op ert y , ser vi ces [,] an d c on st ru ct io n.” An4

1 “ ex pe nd it ur e” i s “ [t]he act or p ro ces s o f sp en di ng or u si ng m on ey , ti m e, en erg y , etc .; 2 esp., the disbu rsem ent of funds . . . [or a] sum paid out.” Black’

s Law D ictiona ry 698 3 (1 0the d. 201 4)
. Mi ra

a rg ue s that , al tho ugh the Pr oc ur em en t Code cl earl y ap pli es to 4 “ ev er y ex pe ndi tur e, ” nothin g in Se ct ion 13- 1- 30 ind ic at es that i t a ppl ie s onl ywhen 5 the re is ane xpe ndi tur e. Bu t this a rg um en t i gnor es the se co nd sen te nc e of S ec tio n 13
- 6 1-30(A), which states that the Pr ocurem ent Code “ als o ap pli es to co nc es sio n 7 co ntr ac ts at the N ewMe x i co state fair in excess of twe nty

thous and doll ars 8 ($ 20, 000) , w heth er th ose c onc es sio n c ontra ct s ge ne rate r ev enue a nd e ar nin gs o r 9 ex pa nd [ sic ] f

unds
. ” (E m

pha sis ad de d. ) A “ co nc es sio n” co ntr ac t is “ [a ] gov er nm en t 10 grant for specific privileges.” Black’ s Law D ictiona ry 350; see 19.5.1. 7(J) N MAC 11 (“‘ Co nc es sio n c ontra ct ’ m eans an a gr ee m en t be tw ee n the de pa rtm en t and a p er son, 12 or busin ess entity , which allows the concessionaire to provid e services, m erchandise, 13 ac co m

m oda tio ns[ , ] or

f ac ili tie s w ith in a

park
. ”)
. A lth ough the pa rt ie s do not de sc ri be 14 it th is way , th e arr an ge m en t at is su e h ere fa ll s wi th in th is de fin it io n. 15 { 8} W e con cl ude that the Pr oc ur em en t Code doe s not appl y he re fo r tw o r ea sons . 1 6 F i r s t , c o n c e s s i o n c o n t r a c t s t yp i c a l l y d o n o t i n v o l v e e x p e n d i tu r e s b y th e p ub l i c e n t i t y. 17 See Jo hn Zieg le r, Th e D ange rs o f M uni ci pal Co nc es sio n C

ontrac ts: A Ne w V

eh ic le 18 to Improve A ccountab ilit y and Tran spar ency , 40 P ub. Co nt. L
. J. 571 , 575 ( 2011 ) 19 (d isc uss ing ba sic co nc es sio n c ontra ct s) ; see also Kayak Ctr. at W ickford Cove, L

LC5

1 v. T ow n of Na rragans et t , 116 A
. 3d 250, 255 (R
. I. 2015 ) (d es cr ibi ng co nc essio n 2 co nt ract s as “ co nt ract s t ha t p ro du ce re ve nu e an d n ot p u r c h a s e s” ). Seco nd , we 3 int e r p r e t t h e s e c o n d s e n t e n c e o f S e c t i o n 1 3
- 1
- 3 0 ( A ) a s a n a rr o w e x c e p t i o n t o th e 4 ex pe ndi tur e re qui re m en t i n th e fi rs t se nte nc e. P hr as ed an oth er w ay , thi s pr ovi sio n 5 m eans tha t the onl y

ti m e a tr an sa ct ion not inv olv ing an ex pe ndi tur e is co ve re d by the 6 Pr oc ur em en t C ode is w he n it is a co nc es sio n co ntr ac t at the N ew Me xic o sta te f ai r fo r 7 over $20,000. Furtherm ore, under the principle of inc lus io u niu s est e xc lus io a lte riu s , 8 the incl us ionof

state f ai r co nc es sio n c ontra ct s ov er $20 , 000 in the statut e al so a ct s 9 as a n e xc lus ionof om itt ed al te rn at ive s—b ei ng co nc es sio n co ntr ac ts of oth er kin ds. 10 Ci ty of Santa R osa v. J aram ill o , 1973 -N MS C- 119, ¶ 11, 85 N
. M. 747 , 517 P
. 2d 6 9 11 (s ta tin g th at inc lus io uniu s est e xc lus io a lte riu s “ m eans the inc lus ionof one thi ng i s 12 the e xc lus ionof

the oth er ”)
. Whe n th e fi rs t se nte nc e is r ead in the c ont ex t of the 13 se co nd, the re is a cl ear im pli ca tio n th at

non -s ta te f

ai r co nc es si on con tr ac ts are not 14 co ve re d by the Pr oc ur em en t Co de
. W e co nc lud e tha t the P ro cure m en t C ode doe s no t 15 ap ply to A PS ’ s RFI or

Mi ra ’ s r es pons e to i t. 16 { 9} O the r co urts h av e hel d un de r sim ilar ci rc um stanc es that c onc es sio n c ontra ct s 17 ar e ex cl ude d f

ro m the a m bit of the ir sta te s’ pr oc ur em en t code s. I n Ka ya k Ce ntr e , the 18 Rhode Island Suprem e Court considered a request for declaratory j udgm ent sim ilar 19 to that here. 116 A. 3d at 252-53. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had vio lated6

1 a procurem ent statute when it did n o t aw ard a c oncession contract to the plaintiff, 2 who pro po se d a hi gh er p aym en t to th e de fen da nt th an it s co m pe ti to rs . Id

. I n a ddi tio n 3 to r equir ing c om

pe tit ive sea le d bi ddi ng, the statut e at iss ue pr ovi de d th at

“ [t ] he 4 co ntr ac t sh al l be a w ar de d w ithr ea sona ble pr om ptn es s by w ri tte n no tic e to the 5 re spon siv e an d r es pons ibl e bid de r w hose bid is ei the r the low es t bid pr ic e, or low es t 6 ev al ua te d or

r es pons ive bid

pr ic e. ” R. I. G en . L aw s § 4 5- 55- 5( e) ( 1998 ). Re ly ing on 7 thi s langua ge an d re fe re nc es to “ pur ch as es ” an d “pr oc ur em en t” in the statut e, the 8 Ka ya k Ce ntr e c ourt he ld tha t “ [t ] he langua ge of the statut e is c le ar

a nd u na m

big uous . 9 A s ar es ult , w e ne ed

not de lve int o th e int en t of

the [ g] en er al [a]ss em

bl y , exc ep t t o 10 say tha t i n ou r opi nio n, in en ac tin g [ Se ct ion ] 45- 55- 5 th e [l ] eg isl at ur e soug ht t o 11 regulate con tracts th at requi re the expenditu re of publ ic funds.” Ka ya k Ctr. , 116 A
. 3d 12 at 254
. T he c ourt he ld tha t the pr oc ur em en t sta tut e did not ap ply , sta tin g, “ W e cannot 13 rew rite the statute by

essentially

exchanging the word lowest for the word high est, a s 14 [the] plaintiff would have us do, because w e w ill not in sert w ords into an 15 unam bigu ous st atute.” Id

. ; see Indep. Taxicab Ass’n of Columbus v. Columbus Green 16 Cabs, Inc. , 616 N
. E
. 2d 1 144, 1149 ( O hio Ct
. App. 199 2) ( hol din g th at , w he re the 1 7 p l a i n t i f

f s o u g h tt o p r o v i d e t a x i m a n a g e m e n ts e rv i c e s a tt h e a i r p o rt , b e c au s e “ t he 18 [d ef en da nt- ] ci ty

is not pur ch as ing se rv ic es fr om [the w inn ing co ntr ac tor , it ] w as not 19 req ui red to c om

ply w iththe c om

pe tit ive bid din g pr oc ed

ur es se t f

orth i n [ the7

1 de fe ndant- ci ty ’ s pr oc ur em en t c ode ] ”) ; se e als o 10 McQu il li n M un . Cor p., Co ntr ac ts 2 in G en eral § 29: 38 (3 d ed
. ) (“ Whe re a ci ty is not pur ch as ing se rv ic es but gr an tin g a 3 lic en se or

f ranc his e to d o bu sin es s, it is not r equir ed to co m pl y wit h a com

pe tit ive 4 bi dd in g o rd in an ce.”)
. 5 { 10} W e br ie fl y

a ddr es s M ir a’ s arg um en ts tha t the pla in l an g u a g e o f

S e c t i o n1 3- 1- 30 6 is n ot d isp osi tiv e. T o th e ex te nt M ir a ar gue s th at be ca use A PS ’ s RF I re se m

ble d and 7 functioned lik e a R equest for Proposals (RFP ), it shou ld be treated like an RFP under 8 th e Pro cu rem en t Co de , we d i s ag ree f ortwo reas on s. See § 13 -1 -1 12 ( gove rn ing 9 re que sts f

or pr opos al s)
. F ir st, A PS ’ s de ci sio n to use m ethods f or sol ic iti ng and 10 evaluating dental service providers that resem bled those for RFPs does not transform 11 a no n -cov ered transaction in to a covered one, or vice versa. If the m ethods cho sen 12 de te rm ine d w he the r the P ro cure m en t C ode ap pli ed , the n S ec tio n 13 -1 -3 0( A ) w oul d 1 3 b e s up er fl u o u s . M o re o v er , p u b l i c e n t i t i es co u l dav o i dt h e P ro cu re m en tCo d e’s 14 requirem ents sim

ply by not f ol l owing its RFP procedures. Sec ond, the RFI m ade clear 15 tha t A PS w as not

of fe ri ng t o bu y

ser vice s f

ro m r es pond en ts t o th e RF I. I nst ea d, it 16 st at edsev eral ti m es th atth e se le ct edve nd or s m us t b il l th ird pa rti es forpa ym en t. Cf
. 17 Lo we v . Ci tyof

H ot S pri ngs , 201 5 S D 3, ¶ 19, 859 N
. W
. 2d 612 (r ej ec tin g ana rg um en t 18 tha t, be ca

use the de fe ndant “ ut il iz ed the RF P pr oc es s, ” the sol ic itatio n w as f or8

1 pr oc ur em en t of

se rv ic es on the gr ound tha t “ the RF P its el f ind ic at ed th at the 2 [defendant] wa s not seeking to procure services” (internal quotation m arks om itted)). 3 { 11} Mi ra

a lso r el ie s on Me m orial

Me dical Center, Inc. v. Tatsch Constru ction, Inc. , 4 to arg ue tha t the P ro cure m en t C ode appl ie s. 2000 -N MS C- 030, 129 N
. M. 677 , 12 P
. 3d 5 431. I n Mem orial

Me dical Center , the issue w as whet her a private entity (MMCI ) 6 co uld be c onsi de re d a “ pol iti ca l subdi vis ion ” or “ loc al publ ic body ” by virtue of it s 7 relationship with the public entities (the City of La s Cruces and Countyof D oña Ana) 8 th at le as edMMC I th e h os pi ta l fa ci li ty. Id

. ¶¶ 1-2 (internal quot ation m arks om itted). 9 T he iss ue in Mem orial

Me dical Center w as not w he the r the Pr oc ur em en t Code w oul d 10 ap ply to a newc onstru ct ionpr oj ec t e nte re d in to b y the Ci ty or the Co unty , a s pu

bli c 11 en ti ti es . Id

. ¶ 1. It w as fu lly unde rs too d th at the P ro cure m en t C ode w oul d a ppl y to the 12 ne w hos pit al c onstru ct ionpr oj ec t i f the Ci ty or Co unty ha d c on ti nu ed to ow n and 13 op erat e th e h os pi ta l. Id

. ¶ ¶ 4, 20- 36. Mor e spe ci fi ca lly , the que sti on w as w he the r the 1 4 P r o c u r e men tC o d e a n dr e l a t e ds t a tu t e s s h o u l da l s o ap p l y t o M M C I , ap r i v a t e e n t i t y, 15 “ be ca use the pr iva te e nti ty

ha s so m an y

pub lic a ttr ibu te s, is so c ontrolled an d 16 co nduc te d, or oth er

w ise is so af

fi liate d wi th a publi c ent ity tha t as a m at te r of f ai rn es s 17 it m ust be consi dered as the sam e entity .” Id

. ¶ 34. 18 { 12} In the present case, we understand Mira’ s argum ent to be that, because it w as 19 so i nte rtw ine d w ithapub lic e nti ty ( A PS ) in o ff

er ing to pr ovi de de ntal se rvic es to9

1 A PS sc hool s, the P ro cure m en t C ode m ust appl y to the RF I se le ct ion pr oc ess f or 2 pr ovi ding th es e servic es . W e ar e not pe rs ua de d by

Mi ra ’ s arg um en t. Mi ra

is not 3 steppin g in a s a private entity to pay for dental services on behalf of AP S, as its alter 4 e g o o rot he rwis e. Id

. ¶ 3 5
. M i r a d o e s n o t d i s p u t e t h a t t h e s e d e n t a l s e rv i c e s w i l l be 5 pa id b y Me dic ai d, oth er

thi rd party pa y er s, or pr ovi de d pr o bono to stu de nts . Mi ra did 6 not assert that the third party pay ers and Medicaid ar e acting as an alter ego for A PS. 7 U nli ke the ne w hosp ita l c onstru ct ionpr oj ec t i n Mem orial Medical Center , Mi ra is not 8 ac tin g to pr oc ur e an d pay athi rd party f or pr ovi din g de nta l se rv ic es . N ei the r A PS nor 9 Mi r a p a y t h i r d p a rt i e s t o p r o v i d e d e n t a l s e rv i c e s t o A P S s tu d e n t s . M i r a i s sim ply 10 ap ply ing to be one of the thi rd pa rty pr ovi de rs of the de nta l se rv ic e. N o pr iva te e nti ty 11 acting as the “ alter e go” for A PS has been e stablish ed. T he alter ego theory offer ed 12 under M

em ori al M

edic al C en te r is i na

ppl ic ab le to Mi ra , an d the Pr oc ur em en t C ode 13 w ill not be al te re d or expande d to ap ply to the RF I unde r the se fa ct ua l c ir cu m stanc es . 14 { 13} Fi na lly , a lth oughMi ra m ak es se ve ra l po lic y

a rg um en ts fo r w hy

c onc es sio n 15 co ntr ac ts s houl d be sub j ec t t o th e Pr oc ur em en t C ode , suc h is sue s c al l for “ le gis la tiv e 16 therapy and not j udicial surgery .” State v. G ardn er , 199 1-NMC A- 058, ¶ 9, 112 N.M. 17 280, 814 P. 2d 458 (in te rn al quot at ion m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). “ U nle ss a statut e 18 vio la te s th e Co nst itu tio n, w e w ill no t que sti on the w isd om , pol ic y , or j ustne ss o f 19 legislation enacted by our Le gislature.” A ed

a v . A ed a , 2013 -N MC A -0 95, ¶ 11, 31010

1 P. 3d 646 (alteration, internal quot ation m arks, and citation om itted). T he Le gislature 2 co ul d h av e m ad e al l con ces si on co nt ract s s ub ject t o t he Pro cu rem en t Co de
. Se e Sta te 3 v. G re en wo od , 201 2- N MC A -0 17, ¶ 38, 271 P
. 3d 7 53 ( “ T he L eg isl at ur e know s ho w 4 to i nc lud e langua ge in a sta tut e if it so des ir es . ” (a lte ratio n, int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks, 5 an d citat io n o m itt ed )) ; cf . Alb uq ue rq ue , N.M., Cod e o f Ord in an ces § 5 -5 -2 8( A) 6 (2 011) ( dis tin gui shi ng be tw ee n “ pur ch as es ” an d “ co nc es sio n c ontra ct s” a nd s ta tin g 7 tha t “ [a ] ll pur ch as es of goo ds, se rv ic es , a nd c onstru ct ionin exces s of $ 25, 000, a nd 8 the e sta bli shm en t of co nc es sio n co ntr ac ts ex pe ct ed to e xc ee d $7 5, 000 in r ev enue s to 9 the contractor shall be m ade by com petitive sealed bid except as otherwise authorized 10 by this article. ”). Our Le gislature chose not to do so , and we m ust ho nor that choice. 11 Jo nes v . H

oli dayI nn E xp ress , 201 4- N MC A -0 82, ¶ 19, 331 P
. 3d 9 92 ( “ Co urts m ust 12 co nstru e sta tut es as the y f ind the m a nd m ay not a m en d or

c ha nge the m

und er the 13 guise of const ruction.” (inter nal quot ation m arks and citation om itted)). 14 CON CLU SION 15 { 14} W e conclude that the Procurem ent Code d o es not applyto contracts such as 16 tha t c ont em

pla te d by A PS ’ s RFI
. H en ce , w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ou rt’s dism iss al of 17 Mi ra’s co m

pl ai nt forde cl arat or y

jud gm en t. 18 { 15} IT IS S O ORDERE D. 19

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 20 M IC HA EL D . BU ST A M A N TE , Ju dg e11

1 WE CO NCUR:
2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 3 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e
4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 5 TI M OT HYL. GA R C IA , Ju dg e