Does strict compliance govern Utah procurement appeals? ICS Corrections v. Procurement Policy Board Explained

In ICS Corrections v. Procurement Policy Board, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether strict compliance or substantial compliance applies to procedural requirements in procurement appeals when the statute specifies consequences for noncompliance.

Background and Facts

CenturyLink challenged the Utah Division of Purchasing and General Services’ decision to award an inmate telecommunications contract to Global Tel*Link Corporation instead of CenturyLink, the incumbent provider. After the Division rejected CenturyLink’s protest, the company appealed to the Utah Procurement Policy Board within the required seven-day deadline. However, CenturyLink failed to include a copy of the written protest decision with its notice of appeal, as required by Utah Code § 63G-6a-1702(2)(b)(ii). CenturyLink corrected this error one business day later, but this was one day after the appeal deadline had expired.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the statutory requirement to accompany the notice of appeal with a copy of the protest decision demanded strict compliance or whether substantial compliance would suffice. CenturyLink argued that substantial compliance should be adequate because the procedural error was harmless, quickly corrected, and the statutory requirement was merely directory rather than mandatory.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court examined the statutory language and structure of the Utah Procurement Code. The court noted that Utah Code § 63G-6a-1702(5)(b)(ii) unequivocally directs the appointing officer to “dismiss the appeal, without holding a hearing, if the appointing officer determines that the appeal fails to comply with any of the requirements” in the relevant subsections. The court concluded that when the legislature has dictated a clear consequence for noncompliance—dismissal—the plain language controls and strict compliance is required. The court distinguished cases involving statutes that lacked explicit consequences for procedural failures.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that practitioners must carefully review procedural requirements in administrative appeals, particularly when statutes specify consequences for noncompliance. The ruling emphasizes that even minor procedural defects can be fatal to an appeal if the governing statute mandates dismissal for such failures. Practitioners should ensure all required documentation is attached at the time of filing rather than relying on the ability to cure defects after the deadline has passed.