Government Contract Bid Protest - Idaho

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT BID PROTEST

State of Idaho

OVERVIEW OF IDAHO PROCUREMENT CHALLENGE ROUTES

This template covers two distinct state-level routes. Select the controlling route before filing; do not combine their deadlines, recipients, bonds, or review procedures.

Route A — State Procurement Act

Idaho Code Title 67, Chapter 92 governs covered state acquisitions of property, including goods and services. Section 67-9232 separately addresses:

• specification challenges — written notice to the Division of Purchasing Administrator within no more than ten working days beginning with receipt of notice;
• nonresponsive-bid appeals — appeal to the Department of Administration Director during the five-working-day period beginning the day after receipt of rejection;
• lowest-responsible-bidder applications — application to the Director within five working days after receipt of notice; and
• sole-source challenges — written notice to the Administrator within no more than five working days from the last date of public notice.

Section 67-9232(8) requires a protest bond when filing a formal written specification challenge under subsection (1) or nonresponsive-bid appeal under subsection (2). The bond must accompany the filing; omission requires immediate summary dismissal. Confirm the estimated contract value, bond form, exact amount, filing recipient, and delivery method before submission.

Route B — Division of Public Works

Idaho Code § 67-5711E governs specified challenges by a primary bidder or primary proposer to a Division of Public Works decision. It is not the State Procurement Act's specification-challenge provision. A challenge under § 67-5711E must be submitted to the Director within five business days of notice, state specific reasons the Administrator's decision is erroneous, and include available supporting documentation. The section also contains a separate protest-bond provision.

Confirm Coverage

The State Procurement Act excludes some state officers, branches, and institutions, and it does not supply the general procurement route for counties, cities, or other political subdivisions. Confirm the procuring entity, delegation, solicitation terms, and controlling statute before using either form below.

GROUNDS FOR PROTEST CHECKLIST

Check all grounds applicable to this protest:

☐ Solicitation specifications were defective, ambiguous, or unduly restrictive
☐ Evaluation of bids deviated from stated evaluation criteria
☐ Solicitation notice or published evaluation process did not comply with Idaho Code § 67-9208
☐ Scoring errors, mathematical mistakes, or miscalculations in bid tabulation
☐ Bias, conflict of interest, or improper influence in the procurement process
☐ Unauthorized contact between agency personnel and one or more bidders
☐ Award to a non-responsive bidder
☐ Award to a non-responsible bidder
☐ Improper sole-source or emergency procurement justification
☐ Protester's bid improperly rejected as nonresponsive
☐ Lowest-responsible-bidder determination did not follow Idaho Code §§ 67-9203(12) and 67-9210
☐ Cost or price evaluation errors
☐ Failure to comply with terms and conditions of the Invitation to Bid
☐ Improper waiver of material bid requirements for the awardee
☐ Failure to conduct proper request for qualifications process
☐ Violation of the State Procurement Act, IDAPA 38.05.01, or controlling solicitation
☐ Division of Public Works challenge under Idaho Code § 67-5711E
☐ Other: [________________________________]

FORMAL BID PROTEST DOCUMENT

BEFORE THE IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

CHALLENGE / APPEAL OF PROCUREMENT DECISION

Protester (Appellant): [________________________________]

Solicitation/Bid No.: [________________________________]

Solicitation Title: [________________________________]

Contracting Agency: [________________________________]

Date of Award/Rejection Notice: [__/__/____]

Date of This Challenge: [__/__/____]

Challenge/Appeal No.: [________________________________] (if assigned)

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This Challenge or Appeal ("Challenge") is submitted by [________________________________] ("Protester"), a [________________________________] organized under the laws of the State of [____], with its principal place of business at [________________________________], under the route selected below. The recipient, deadline, bond, and review process are route-specific.

Protester challenges the [☐ award decision / ☐ bid rejection / ☐ specification requirements / ☐ sole-source determination / ☐ Division of Public Works decision] in connection with Solicitation or Project No. [________________________________], which sought [________________________________] (brief description of procurement).

II. TYPE OF CHALLENGE

(Select the applicable type)

☐ State Procurement Act — Specification Challenge (§ 67-9232(1)): A qualified and able vendor gives written notice to the Administrator within the statutory period and states the exact nature, location, explanation, and suggested correction for each challenge.

☐ State Procurement Act — Nonresponsive-Bid Appeal (§ 67-9232(2)): Protester's bid was found nonresponsive and Protester appeals to the Director.

☐ State Procurement Act — Lowest-Responsible-Bidder Application (§ 67-9232(3)): Protester's bid was considered but Protester was not selected as the lowest responsible bidder. Protester applies to the Director for appointment of a determinations officer.

☐ State Procurement Act — Sole-Source Challenge (§ 67-9232(4)): Protester is able to supply the property and challenges the noticed sole-source procurement.

☐ Division of Public Works Challenge (§ 67-5711E): Protester was a primary bidder or primary proposer within one of the categories listed in subsection (2).

III. TIMELINESS OF THIS CHALLENGE

1. On [__/__/____], [identify official and action]: [________________________________].

2. Protester received notice on [__/__/____] by [________________________________]. The last date of sole-source public notice, if applicable, was [__/__/____].

3. This Challenge is delivered on [__/__/____] under the following deadline:

☐ § 67-9232(1): no more than ten working days beginning with receipt of notice
☐ § 67-9232(2): five working days beginning the day after receipt of rejection
☐ § 67-9232(3): five working days following receipt of lowest-responsible-bidder notice
☐ § 67-9232(4): no more than five working days from the last date of sole-source public notice
☐ § 67-5711E(4): five business days from notice of the challenged public-works decision

4. Therefore, this Challenge is timely.

IV. STANDING

1. Protester [submitted a timely bid on [__/__/____] / is qualified and able to supply the challenged specification / is able to supply the noticed sole-source property / was a primary bidder or proposer on the public-works procurement].

2. Protester is [☐ a qualified and able specification challenger / ☐ a bidder found nonresponsive / ☐ a bidder whose bid was considered in the lowest-responsible-bidder determination / ☐ a vendor able to supply the sole-source property / ☐ a primary public-works bidder or proposer covered by § 67-5711E(2)].

3. The facts establishing Protester's eligibility for the selected statutory route are: [________________________________].

4. Protester therefore qualifies to use the selected route under [Idaho Code § 67-9232 / Idaho Code § 67-5711E].

IV-A. PROTEST BOND

☐ State Procurement Act specification challenge or nonresponsive-bid appeal: A bond in the form allowed by § 67-9232(8) accompanies this filing. The agency supplied the estimated contract value on [__/__/____] after written request on [__/__/____].

• Estimated total contract value over the initial term: $[________________________________]
• Applicable calculation: [☐ one percent because value is under $10,000,000 / ☐ one-half percent because value is at least $10,000,000, subject to the statutory cap]
• Bond amount: $[________________________________]
• Bond form: [certified check / cashier's check / bid bond / surety bond]

☐ Division of Public Works challenge: Section 67-5711E(5)(d) states a bond equal to twenty-five percent of the allocated construction budget; if the RFQ omitted that budget, the Director sets a reasonable amount not exceeding twenty-five percent of anticipated capital expenditures. The requirement has been reviewed and satisfied as follows: [________________________________].

☐ Other route: Section 67-9232(8) does not identify this route in its bond requirement; the solicitation, current rules, and any other controlling provision were checked for a separate requirement: [________________________________].

V. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Set forth a detailed chronological narrative of the relevant facts:

1. On [__/__/____], the Agency issued Solicitation No. [________________________________], seeking [________________________________].

2. The Solicitation established the following requirements and evaluation criteria:

a. [________________________________]

b. [________________________________]

c. [________________________________]

d. [________________________________]

3. On [__/__/____], Protester submitted its bid in response to the Solicitation in the amount of $[________________________________].

4. [________________________________] (describe any pre-award events, addenda, or clarifications).

5. On [__/__/____], the Administrator [awarded the contract to [________________________________] / rejected Protester's bid as nonresponsive because [________________________________]].

6. Protester's bid price was $[________________________________]. The winning bid price was $[________________________________].

7. [________________________________] (describe any post-award events or information obtained).

8. [________________________________] (additional relevant facts).

VI. SPECIFIC REASONS FOR THE CHALLENGE

For a lowest-responsible-bidder application or Division of Public Works challenge, state in specific terms why the decision is erroneous. For a specification challenge, identify the exact challenged location or omission, explain why text should be struck, added, or altered, and supply suggested corrections. Attach available supporting documentation.

Reason 1: [________________________________]

[________________________________]

Supporting documentation: [________________________________]

Applicable legal authority: [________________________________]

Reason 2: [________________________________]

[________________________________]

Supporting documentation: [________________________________]

Applicable legal authority: [________________________________]

Reason 3: [________________________________]

[________________________________]

Supporting documentation: [________________________________]

Applicable legal authority: [________________________________]

Reason 4: [________________________________]

(Add additional reasons as necessary)

[________________________________]

VII. LEGAL ARGUMENT

A. The Decision Was Erroneous Under the Selected Statutory Route

The decision to [award the contract to [________________________________] / reject Protester's bid / use the challenged specification / approve the sole source] was erroneous because [________________________________]. The controlling provision is [Idaho Code § 67-9232(____) / § 67-5711E].

B. The Solicitation or Evaluation Departed from Governing Requirements

Idaho Code § 67-9208 requires the solicitation notice to describe the property and publish the bid closing information, and requires publication of the bid-analysis or scoring process when notice issues. That process may change only through the means stated in subsection (4). The procurement departed from the controlling solicitation, statute, or IDAPA 38.05.01 because [________________________________].

C. The Administrator Improperly Applied Bid Responsiveness Standards

(If applicable) The Administrator rejected Protester's bid as nonresponsive, finding that [________________________________]. However, this determination was erroneous because [the bid complied with the identified requirement / the alleged requirement was not in the solicitation]. Other grounded reason: [________________________________].

D. The Error Affected the Procurement

The identified error affected Protester's bid or competitive position as follows: [________________________________].

E. Additional Legal Arguments

[________________________________]

VIII. CONTRACT-AWARD OR BID-OPENING STATUS

(Select as applicable)

☐ State Procurement Act — Specification Challenge: Under § 67-9232(1)(c), the Administrator resets bid opening no later than fifteen days after final determination of challenges or amendment of specifications; if the Administrator denies the challenge, the bid-opening date is not reset.

☐ State Procurement Act — Nonresponsive-Bid Appeal: Under § 67-9232(6), no bid may be awarded until the Director renders the final decision.

☐ Other State Procurement Act Challenge: When a determinations officer is appointed, § 67-9232(6) permits the Director to allow award before or after the officer's decision if the Director determines award is in the state's best interests.

☐ Division of Public Works Challenge: Section 67-5711E(6) bars contract execution while the challenge is pending, but permits the Director to allow award to the successful bidder upon a best-interest determination.

Requested status protection or direction, with supporting authority: [________________________________].

IX. REQUESTED RELIEF

Protester respectfully requests that the statutory recipient or decisionmaker:

1. ☐ Sustain this Challenge and find that the Administrator's decision was erroneous;

2. ☐ Sustain, modify, or reverse the challenged decision as authorized by the selected route;

3. ☐ Direct the Administrator to cancel the award to [________________________________];

4. ☐ Direct the Administrator to re-evaluate bids in accordance with the Solicitation's requirements;

5. ☐ Direct that the affected bids be rejected or sustained under Idaho Code § 67-9232(6), as applicable;

6. ☐ Direct the Agency to re-solicit the procurement;

7. ☐ Reset the bid opening date (for specification challenges);

8. ☐ Return the protest bond if the challenge or appeal is successful, when § 67-9232(8) applies;

9. ☐ Grant such other and further relief as the Director deems just and appropriate.

X. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

The following documentation is provided in support of this Challenge:

☐ Exhibit A: Copy of the Solicitation / Invitation to Bid (or relevant excerpts)

☐ Exhibit B: Protester's Bid (or relevant excerpts)

☐ Exhibit C: Notice of Award or Notice of Rejection

☐ Exhibit D: Bid Tabulation Sheet

☐ Exhibit E: Correspondence with the Administrator or Agency

☐ Exhibit F: [________________________________]

☐ Exhibit G: [________________________________]

☐ Exhibit H: [________________________________]

XI. CERTIFICATION

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that:

1. The statements and representations made in this Challenge are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief;

2. This Challenge is filed in good faith and not for any improper purpose;

3. The factual contentions herein have evidentiary support as provided in the attached documentation;

4. I am authorized to submit this Challenge on behalf of Protester.

XII. SIGNATURE AND IDENTIFICATION

PROTESTER:

Signature: _________________________________

Printed Name: [________________________________]

Title: [________________________________]

Organization: [________________________________]

Address: [________________________________]

City, State, ZIP: [________________________________]

Telephone: [________________________________]

Email: [________________________________]

Date: [__/__/____]

COUNSEL FOR PROTESTER (if applicable):

Signature: _________________________________

Name: [________________________________], Esq.

Idaho State Bar No.: [________________________________]

Firm: [________________________________]

Address: [________________________________]

City, State, ZIP: [________________________________]

Telephone: [________________________________]

Email: [________________________________]

Date: [__/__/____]

XIII. CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY

I certify that on [__/__/____], the signed Challenge or Appeal and all exhibits were delivered by the method authorized in the solicitation and current official filing instructions to:

☐ Administrator, Division of Purchasing — for a § 67-9232(1) specification challenge or § 67-9232(4) sole-source challenge

☐ Director, Department of Administration — for a § 67-9232(2) nonresponsive-bid appeal or § 67-9232(3) lowest-responsible-bidder application

☐ Director, Department of Administration — for a § 67-5711E Division of Public Works challenge

Current recipient address or electronic route used: [________________________________]

Delivery method: [________________________________]

Delivery confirmation or receipt number: [________________________________]

Courtesy copies, if required by the solicitation or another controlling source, were sent to: [________________________________]

For a § 67-9232(1) or (2) filing, the required protest bond was separately posted with the Administrator at the time of filing by [________________________________], with receipt or confirmation [________________________________].

Signature: _________________________________

Name: [________________________________]

Date: [__/__/____]

FILING CHECKLIST

☐ Identified the procuring entity and confirmed the State Procurement Act or Division of Public Works route applies
☐ Preserved the notice, envelope, email metadata, solicitation, amendments, bid, evaluation, and award records
☐ Selected the correct subsection and calculated its working-day or business-day deadline
☐ Confirmed the recipient and authorized delivery method from current official instructions
☐ Stated each reason with specific facts and attached available supporting documentation
☐ For a specification challenge, identified each exact clause or omission and supplied suggested corrections
☐ For a lowest-responsible-bidder application, evaluated whether a public-records request suspends the filing period under § 67-9232(3)(b)
☐ Requested the estimated contract value in writing when needed for a § 67-9232(8) bond
☐ Attached the required bond at filing for a § 67-9232(1) or (2) matter
☐ Reviewed § 67-5711E(5)(d)'s separate bond provision for a public-works challenge
☐ Retained a complete filed copy and proof of timely receipt
☐ Calendared the decision, record, and judicial-review dates applicable to the selected route

AGENCY REVIEW PROCESS

State Procurement Act — Idaho Code § 67-9232

1. Specifications. The Administrator either denies the challenge as the final agency decision or presents it to the Director for appointment of a determinations officer. The specification decision is not a contested case.

2. Nonresponsive bid. The Director denies the application or appoints a determinations officer to review the record and recommend affirmance or reversal. The Director then sustains, modifies, or reverses the nonresponsiveness decision. This route is not a contested case and is not reviewable under Chapter 52.

3. Lowest responsible bidder. Within five working days after receiving the application, the Director may deny it, appoint a determinations officer for record review, or appoint a determinations officer with contested-case authority. The procedural choice determines the later review route.

4. Sole source. The Director denies the application or appoints a determinations officer for record review and recommendation, then sustains, modifies, or reverses the sole-source determination. This route is not a contested case and is not reviewable under Chapter 52.

5. Director authority. Section 67-9232(6) authorizes the Director to impose the referenced penalty, enjoin activity violating Chapter 92, direct that bids or specifications be rejected, sustained, or modified, and direct further legal action.

Division of Public Works — Idaho Code § 67-5711E

The Director must act within five business days after receipt. If no request for qualifications was issued, the Director may affirm or modify the Administrator's decision, affirm the challenge and issue recommendations, or request hearing-officer record review. If an RFQ was issued, the Director requests either record review or a contested-case hearing. A contested-case hearing produces findings, conclusions, and a recommended order followed by the Director's final order.

JUDICIAL REVIEW — SELECT THE CORRECT ROUTE

☐ Lowest-responsible-bidder special review under § 67-9232(3)(d). A final Director decision denying an application under subsection (3)(a)(i), or sustaining the Administrator after record review under subsection (3)(c), is subject to the special judicial-review procedure in subsection (3)(d). The petition deadline is twenty-eight days from the final decision. The subsection supplies the record and review standards and directs an expedited briefing and hearing schedule.

☐ Contested-case review. Only a lowest-responsible-bidder appeal assigned for a contested-case hearing under § 67-9232(3)(a)(iii) uses Chapter 52 judicial review through § 67-9229. Apply the current Idaho Administrative Procedure Act and Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 84, including the applicable twenty-eight-day filing trigger.

☐ No Chapter 52 review. Specification, nonresponsive-bid, and sole-source routes are not contested cases. Section 67-9232 expressly bars Chapter 52 review for nonresponsive and sole-source appeals; specification decisions are also declared non-contested. Do not infer another review route without current authority.

☐ Division of Public Works. Determine from the final route selected under § 67-5711E, § 67-5270, and the resulting order whether and how judicial review is available. Do not reuse the State Procurement Act review paragraph without that analysis.

IMPORTANT CURRENT-LAW NOTES

1. Obsolete citations. Former Idaho Code §§ 67-5718, 67-5729, and 67-5733 are not in the current Chapter 57 table of contents. The State Procurement Act now appears in Title 67, Chapter 92, with challenges and appeals in § 67-9232.

2. 2026 amendment. House Bill 889, 2026 Idaho Session Laws chapter 283, effective July 1, 2026, amended the State Procurement Act. This template uses the current codified post-effective text.

3. Different clocks. Section 67-9232 uses different triggers and uses “working days.” Section 67-5711E uses “business days.” Calculate from the text controlling the selected route and the documented notice date.

4. No generic four-factor stay. Use the award and contract-execution rules stated in the selected statute. Do not import a generic stay test without separate controlling authority.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Idaho State Procurement Act, Title 67, Chapter 92: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title67/T67CH92/
• Idaho Code § 67-9232, Challenges and Appeals: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title67/T67CH92/SECT67-9232/
• Idaho Code § 67-9229, Application of Administrative Procedure Act: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title67/T67CH92/SECT67-9229/
• Idaho Code § 67-5711E, Division of Public Works Challenges: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title67/T67CH57/SECT67-5711E/
• House Bill 889 (2026), official action history: https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2026/legislation/H0889/
• IDAPA 38.05.01, Rules of the Division of Purchasing: https://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/38/380501.pdf
• Idaho Division of Purchasing: https://purchasing.idaho.gov/

This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified Idaho attorney before filing a procurement challenge or seeking judicial review.