The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board, established under Mississippi Code Annotated §65-1-1 et seq., serves as the appellate body for disputes arising from state agency procurement processes. When a protest is filed by an aggrieved bidder or offeror, the Board must determine whether the procuring agency’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. In this scenario, the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) awarded a contract for highway resurfacing to “Pavement Solutions Inc.” despite “Asphalt Masters LLC” submitting a bid that was approximately 5% lower. Asphalt Masters LLC filed a protest with the Procurement Review Board, alleging that MDOT improperly evaluated their technical proposal, citing a subjective interpretation of “innovative application techniques” that favored Pavement Solutions Inc. The Board’s review would focus on whether MDOT’s evaluation criteria were clearly defined in the solicitation, whether the evaluation was conducted in a fair and consistent manner according to those criteria, and whether the deviation from the lowest bid was justified by a demonstrable and documented superiority in the technical proposal of the awarded vendor. If the Board finds that MDOT’s evaluation was not based on the stated criteria or was otherwise unreasonable, it can recommend remedies such as cancellation of the award and re-solicitation or directing the agency to re-evaluate the bids. The specific legal standard applied is whether the agency’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious. The Procurement Review Board’s authority is derived from state statutes governing public procurement in Mississippi.

The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board (MPPRB) has a defined process for handling protests of contract awards. When a protest is filed, the MPPRB must conduct an investigation and issue a decision within a specified timeframe. The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board Rules, specifically Rule 10, outlines the procedures for protests. Rule 10(D) states that the Board shall render a decision within 30 days from the date of the hearing or from the date the record is closed if no hearing is held. In this scenario, the hearing was concluded on April 15th. Therefore, the 30-day period begins on April 16th. Counting 30 days from April 16th: April has 30 days, so there are 15 days remaining in April (30 – 15 = 15). This leaves 15 more days to count into May. Thus, the deadline for the MPPRB to render its decision is May 15th. This timeframe is crucial for ensuring timely resolution of procurement disputes and maintaining the integrity of the public contracting process in Mississippi. Failure to adhere to this deadline could lead to further procedural complications or challenges to the Board’s authority.

The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board, established under Mississippi Code Annotated §65-1-87, is the designated body for hearing appeals from procurement decisions made by state agencies. When a disappointed bidder files an appeal, the Board’s jurisdiction is triggered. The Board must review the procurement process to determine if the agency’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. A key aspect of this review involves assessing whether the agency followed the procurement statutes and regulations, such as those outlined in the Mississippi Public Procurement Act (Mississippi Code Annotated Title 31, Chapter 7). If the Board finds that the agency’s decision was flawed, it can take various actions, including recommending the cancellation of the award, directing the agency to re-evaluate proposals, or in some cases, ordering a new procurement process. The Board’s role is to ensure fairness and compliance within the state’s contracting procedures, providing a mechanism for aggrieved parties to seek redress. The correct answer focuses on the Board’s statutory authority to review agency actions in procurement appeals.

The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board, established under Mississippi Code Annotated §65-1-73, is the primary administrative body responsible for hearing appeals related to state agency procurement decisions. When a protest is filed by an aggrieved bidder concerning a contract awarded by a Mississippi state agency, the initial procedural step typically involves the agency’s internal review process. If the protest is denied or inadequately addressed by the agency, the bidder can then escalate the matter to the Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board. The Board’s jurisdiction extends to reviewing the agency’s compliance with applicable procurement statutes and regulations, such as those found in Title 31, Chapter 7 of the Mississippi Code. The Board’s decision can uphold, overturn, or modify the agency’s award, and its findings are subject to judicial review in the state courts. The question focuses on the correct procedural pathway for a bidder seeking to challenge an award after an unsuccessful agency-level protest, highlighting the role of the Review Board as the next administrative appellate body within Mississippi’s procurement framework.

The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board, established under Mississippi Code Annotated §65-1-87, is the primary administrative body tasked with hearing appeals from aggrieved parties concerning state agency procurement decisions. When a protest is filed concerning a contract award, the Board conducts an administrative review. The Mississippi Administrative Procedures Act, particularly concerning contested cases, dictates the procedural framework for these hearings. The Board’s authority extends to affirming, reversing, or modifying agency decisions, or remanding the matter for further proceedings. In this scenario, the Board’s role is to review the legality and fairness of the procurement process and the agency’s award decision. The Mississippi Tort Claims Act, while governing liability for torts committed by governmental entities, is not the primary mechanism for resolving disputes over contract awards. Similarly, the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure govern judicial proceedings and are not directly applicable to the administrative review process before the Procurement Review Board, although principles of due process and fairness are paramount. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) governs contracts for the sale of goods, but procurement by state agencies often involves services, construction, or complex projects, and the specific procurement statutes and regulations take precedence over general UCC provisions in this context. Therefore, the Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board is the correct forum for an appeal of a state agency’s contract award decision.

The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board, established under Mississippi Code Annotated Section 65-1-89, is the designated body for hearing appeals related to state agency procurement decisions. When a protest is filed concerning a contract award, the Board’s jurisdiction is invoked. The relevant statute dictates that a protest must be filed within a specific timeframe after the basis for the protest is known or should have been known. Generally, this is within ten (10) days of the date the protester knew or should have known of the facts giving rise to the protest. If a protest is timely filed, the procurement process is typically stayed. This stay, as outlined in procurement regulations, suspends all further activity on the procurement until the protest is resolved. The Board then has a statutory period to issue a decision. Mississippi law mandates that the Board shall render a decision within sixty (60) days from the date the protest is filed, unless the Board determines that an extension is necessary and justifiable, in which case it must be documented. This sixty-day period is a critical timeline for ensuring the efficient resolution of procurement disputes. Failure to meet this deadline without proper justification could lead to procedural issues or necessitate further administrative or judicial review. The Board’s decision, when rendered, can affirm the agency’s decision, recommend modification, or recommend cancellation of the award, impacting the contract’s validity and the parties involved.

The Mississippi Public Records Act, codified in Mississippi Code Annotated Section 25-61-1 et seq., governs public access to government records. When a request is made for records that are maintained by a state agency and are not specifically exempted from disclosure, the agency generally has a duty to provide access. However, the Act allows for certain exemptions, such as those pertaining to trade secrets or proprietary information submitted to a state agency in connection with a bid or proposal for a contract. In this scenario, the Department of Transportation received a bid from Coastal Construction for a highway project. Coastal Construction submitted detailed cost breakdowns and methodologies as part of its bid. A citizen then requested access to these specific bid documents. Under Mississippi law, bid proposals submitted to state agencies are often considered confidential and exempt from public disclosure to the extent that they contain proprietary information that, if disclosed, would give an unfair competitive advantage to other bidders or compromise the integrity of the bidding process. This protection is crucial for fostering robust competition in public contracting. Therefore, the Department of Transportation would likely deny access to the detailed cost breakdowns and methodologies submitted by Coastal Construction, citing the exemption for proprietary information within bid documents, as disclosure could prejudice future competitive bidding. The general principle of open government access is balanced by the need to protect sensitive commercial information integral to the procurement process.

The scenario describes a situation where a contractor, Delta Construction, has submitted a bid for a public works project with the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). Delta Construction’s bid was found to be irregular due to a clerical error in the submission, specifically the omission of a required certification form. Mississippi law, particularly the Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board Rules and Regulations and relevant statutes governing public contracts, outlines the procedures for handling bid irregularities. Generally, minor informalities or irregularities that do not affect the integrity of the competitive bidding process or prejudice other bidders may be waived by the procuring agency. However, the omission of a mandatory certification form, which is a critical component of the bid package intended to ensure compliance with legal requirements and contractor qualifications, is typically considered a material irregularity. Such material irregularities usually render a bid non-responsive. The Mississippi Procurement Code, specifically in sections dealing with bid evaluation and award, emphasizes the importance of responsive bids. A responsive bid is one that conforms to all material provisions of the invitation for bids. Because the certification form is a material requirement, its absence is likely to be viewed as a failure to conform to the invitation for bids, making the bid non-responsive. The procuring agency, MDOT in this case, has the discretion to reject non-responsive bids. Therefore, Delta Construction’s bid would most likely be rejected as non-responsive due to the material irregularity. The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board Rules and Regulations, specifically concerning bid acceptance and rejection, would guide MDOT’s decision. The rules generally allow for the waiver of minor informalities, but a missing mandatory certification is typically not considered a minor informality.

The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board, established under Mississippi Code Annotated Section 37-101-23, is the designated body for hearing appeals from decisions of state agencies regarding procurement disputes. When a contractor files a protest concerning a contract award, the board’s jurisdiction is triggered. The board’s primary role is to review the agency’s procurement process to determine if it complied with applicable statutes and regulations, such as the Mississippi Public Procurement Act (Mississippi Code Annotated Title 31, Chapter 7). The board does not conduct de novo reviews of the agency’s decision but rather examines the record developed by the agency. If the board finds that the agency acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or in violation of law, it can recommend remedies, which may include directing the agency to re-evaluate bids or cancel and re-issue the solicitation. The board’s recommendations are generally advisory to the agency head, but the agency is expected to give them significant weight. Unlike some other jurisdictions, Mississippi law does not grant the Review Board the power to directly award damages to a contractor. Its authority is limited to procedural and substantive review of the procurement process and recommending corrective actions to the agency. Therefore, the board’s function is to ensure fairness and adherence to legal standards in state contracting, rather than acting as a court that can impose financial penalties or damages directly.

The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board, established under Mississippi Code Annotated §65-1-1 et seq., specifically §65-1-7, serves as a crucial appellate body for disputes arising from state agency procurement processes. When a protest is filed by an aggrieved bidder, the Board’s jurisdiction is invoked. The initial filing of a protest with the procuring agency, as outlined in Mississippi procurement regulations, is a prerequisite to escalating the matter. If the agency’s decision on the protest is unsatisfactory, the aggrieved party then has the right to appeal to the Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board. This appeal process is governed by specific timelines and procedural rules designed to ensure fairness and efficiency. The Board’s authority extends to reviewing the agency’s procurement actions for compliance with state law and regulations, including the Mississippi Public Procurement Review Act. The Board can affirm, reverse, or modify the agency’s decision, or remand the matter for further proceedings. Therefore, the correct pathway for challenging an agency’s procurement decision after an unsuccessful protest to the agency itself is through an appeal to the Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board.

The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board’s authority to review protests of contract awards is established by Mississippi Code Annotated § 65-1-87. This statute outlines the procedural framework for bid protests, including the grounds upon which a protest may be sustained and the remedies available. When a protest is filed concerning a state agency’s procurement process, the Board has the power to consider whether the agency followed its own rules, state law, and the terms of the solicitation. If the Board finds that the agency acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or in violation of applicable law or the solicitation’s terms, it can declare the award void or order corrective action. The Board’s decision is based on the record developed during the protest proceedings, which typically includes the solicitation, bids received, agency decision documents, and arguments from the protestor and the agency. The question asks about the specific grounds for the Board to overturn an award, which directly relates to the statutory grounds for protest and the Board’s review powers. The correct answer reflects the Board’s mandate to ensure procurement fairness and adherence to legal and procedural requirements, thereby preventing arbitrary or unlawful award decisions.

The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board, established under Mississippi Code Annotated Section 65-1-85, is the designated body to hear appeals from decisions made by the Department of Transportation concerning procurement matters. When a protest is filed by a dissatisfied offeror regarding a contract award or a decision to reject all bids for a state highway project, the initial procedural step involves the filing of a formal protest. According to Mississippi procurement law, specifically in the context of highway projects managed by the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT), the protest must be filed within a specific timeframe following the notification of the award or rejection. While the exact number of days can vary based on specific MDOT regulations or the solicitation itself, the general principle is that protests are timely if filed within a statutory or regulatory period. The Review Board’s jurisdiction is invoked by this timely protest. The Board then conducts a hearing, reviews the evidence, and issues a decision. This decision can affirm, modify, or reverse the procurement action, or order a new procurement process. The correct procedural pathway for challenging an MDOT procurement decision that an offeror believes is improper is through this administrative appeal process to the Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board.

The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board, established under Mississippi Code Annotated §65-1-1 et seq., serves as the appellate body for challenges to state agency procurement decisions. When a protest is filed concerning a contract awarded by a Mississippi state agency, the Board’s jurisdiction is invoked. The Board’s authority is primarily to review the procurement process for compliance with applicable Mississippi laws and regulations, including the Mississippi Public Procurement Law. The Board can sustain or deny the protest, recommend remedies such as contract termination or re-procurement, or order other appropriate actions. However, the Board does not have the power to award damages to a protestor. Damages are typically sought through separate legal actions in a court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, in this scenario, while the Board can review the award and potentially recommend corrective actions, it cannot directly compensate the aggrieved bidder for lost profits or other financial losses incurred due to the alleged impropriety in the procurement process. The Mississippi Office of State Purchasing, under the Department of Finance and Administration, is responsible for developing and implementing procurement policies and procedures for state agencies, but the Review Board is the designated forum for adjudicating protests.

The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board, established under Mississippi Code Annotated §65-1-7, is the primary administrative body for resolving disputes arising from state agency procurement processes. When a disappointed bidder protests a contract award, the board conducts a review. The board’s authority extends to considering protests related to alleged improprieties in the solicitation, evaluation, or award of contracts by state agencies. The review process typically involves the submission of written arguments and evidence by the protesting party and the agency. The board then issues a decision based on the applicable procurement statutes and regulations, including the Mississippi Public Procurement Law. This decision can either uphold the agency’s action, overturn it, or remand the matter for further proceedings. The board’s rulings are subject to judicial review in the state courts. The concept of “actual impropriety” is central to a successful protest, meaning the bidder must demonstrate a tangible violation of procurement rules or laws that prejudiced their ability to compete fairly. A mere disagreement with the agency’s judgment or a claim of a better proposal is generally insufficient without proof of a procedural or substantive flaw in the award process.

In Mississippi government contracts, the doctrine of substantial performance allows a contractor to recover the contract price less any damages caused by minor deviations from the contract specifications. This doctrine is an equitable principle designed to prevent forfeiture by a contractor who has largely, but not perfectly, fulfilled their obligations. For a deviation to be considered minor, it must be an unintentional breach that does not frustrate the essential purpose of the contract. The non-breaching party must still receive the substantial benefit of the bargain. The measure of damages for a breach under substantial performance is typically the cost to correct the defect, or if correction is not feasible or would be grossly disproportionate, the difference in value between the performance promised and the performance rendered. In this scenario, the minor deviation in the concrete mix for the highway expansion project in Mississippi, if it does not impair the structural integrity or significantly affect the lifespan and safety of the highway, would likely be considered a substantial performance. The state would be entitled to damages reflecting the diminished value or the cost of correction if it’s reasonable, but the contractor would not be denied payment for the entire project. The key is that the contractor has performed the essence of the contract, even with a small, non-material deviation.

The Mississippi Public Records Act, codified in Mississippi Code Annotated Section 25-61-1 et seq., governs access to public records maintained by state and local government entities. When a request is made for a record that contains both exempt and non-exempt information, the custodian of the record is obligated to redact the exempt portions and provide the remaining non-exempt information. This principle is often referred to as the “severability” or “redaction” requirement. The law does not permit the withholding of an entire record simply because a portion of it is exempt. Instead, the custodian must make a good faith effort to segregate the exempt material from the public portions. This ensures that the public’s right to access information is balanced with the need to protect certain sensitive data as defined by statute. For instance, if a contract document contains trade secrets of a private vendor that are protected under Mississippi Code Annotated Section 25-61-10(1)(b), those specific sections would be redacted, but the rest of the contract, such as payment terms or performance metrics, would be made available to the requester. The Act requires that the custodian notify the requester of any redactions and the legal basis for them.

The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board, established under Mississippi Code Annotated §65-1-87, serves as a crucial appellate body for disputes arising from state agency procurements. When a disappointed bidder protests a contract award, the process typically involves filing a protest with the contracting agency first. If the agency’s decision on the protest is unsatisfactory, the bidder may then appeal to the Public Procurement Review Board. The Board’s authority extends to reviewing the agency’s decision to determine if it was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. A key aspect of the Board’s function is to ensure compliance with Mississippi’s procurement statutes and regulations, such as those found in Title 37 of the Mississippi Code. The Board can affirm, reverse, or modify the agency’s decision, or remand the matter for further proceedings. The statutory timeframe for filing an appeal with the Board is generally within ten days after the agency’s final decision on the protest. Therefore, understanding the procedural steps and the Board’s appellate jurisdiction is essential for navigating procurement disputes in Mississippi.

The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board’s jurisdiction over protests is primarily established by Mississippi Code Annotated Section 65-1-71. This statute outlines the grounds upon which a protest can be filed and the procedures the Board must follow. A protest is generally considered timely if filed within a specified period after the protester knew or should have known of the grounds for protest. In this scenario, the protest was filed on August 15th, following the award notice on August 10th. The Mississippi Procurement Code, specifically in relation to protests, generally allows for a protest to be filed within ten (10) days after the protester knew, or should have known, of the facts giving rise to the protest. Since the award was made on August 10th, and the protest was filed on August 15th, this falls within the ten-day window. Therefore, the Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board has jurisdiction to hear the protest. The core principle is that timely filing is a prerequisite for the Board’s review of the procurement process. The Board’s authority is to ensure compliance with the Mississippi Public Procurement Act and to provide a forum for vendors to challenge procurement decisions they believe are unlawful or unfair.

Mississippi law, particularly within the context of public procurement, emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to statutory requirements for contract modifications. When a state agency, such as the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT), enters into a contract, any subsequent changes must typically follow a prescribed process to remain valid and enforceable. For significant deviations from the original scope or terms, especially those impacting cost or timeline, a formal amendment process is often mandated. This usually involves written documentation, approval from designated officials, and sometimes re-advertisement or competitive bidding if the change is substantial enough to alter the fundamental nature of the original award. The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board plays a role in overseeing these processes, ensuring fairness and accountability. Failure to follow these procedures can render a modification invalid, potentially leading to disputes, contract termination, or legal challenges regarding the expenditure of public funds. In this scenario, the verbal agreement for a substantial increase in materials and a significant extension of the project deadline, without formal written amendment and necessary approvals, would likely be considered an unauthorized modification under Mississippi procurement law, rendering it unenforceable. The governing principle is that public contracts must be transparent and accountable, and informal agreements for material changes undermine these objectives.

In Mississippi, when a contractor is awarded a state contract and subsequently discovers that the bid documents contained a material error that would have significantly impacted the bid price, the contractor may seek relief under certain legal principles. The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board, as established by Mississippi Code Annotated Section 37-101-1 et seq., and its associated regulations, governs procurement processes for state agencies. While the Public Procurement Review Board has authority over bid protests and contract disputes, the specific avenue for a contractor to seek adjustment or cancellation due to a unilateral mistake in their bid, not amounting to fraud or collusion, often involves demonstrating a clear and palpable error that was not the result of negligence. This typically requires proving that the mistake was made, that it was material, that it was made in good faith, and that it would be unconscionable to enforce the contract as bid. The Mississippi Supreme Court has recognized the doctrine of unilateral mistake in contract law, allowing for rescission or reformation when these conditions are met. However, for public contracts, the stringent requirements of public bidding and the preservation of the integrity of the competitive process mean that such relief is not easily granted. The contractor must typically notify the awarding authority of the mistake promptly after its discovery and before the contract is awarded or executed, if possible, or demonstrate why such prompt notification was not feasible. The burden of proof lies with the contractor to establish the elements of a unilateral mistake. The Mississippi Tort Claims Act, while relevant to governmental liability, does not directly govern the adjustment of contract terms due to bidder error; rather, contract law principles and procurement regulations are the primary authorities. The Mississippi Office of State Purchasing also plays a role in setting procurement policies, but the resolution of specific bid errors often falls to the agency and potentially the Review Board or courts.

The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board is an administrative body tasked with hearing appeals related to procurement decisions made by state agencies. Under Mississippi Code Section 31-7-15, the Board has the authority to review protests filed by aggrieved bidders or offerors concerning the award of a contract. A key aspect of this review process involves the timeliness of the protest. Generally, a protest must be filed within a specific timeframe after the basis for the protest is known or should have been known. For protests concerning the solicitation itself, the protest must be filed before the bid or proposal opening. For protests concerning the award, the protest must typically be filed within ten (10) days after the date the aggrieved person knew or should have known of the facts giving rise to the protest. This ten-day period is a crucial jurisdictional requirement. Failure to adhere to this statutory deadline can result in the Board dismissing the protest for lack of timeliness, regardless of the protest’s merits. Therefore, understanding the precise point at which the ten-day clock begins to run is paramount for any entity wishing to challenge a Mississippi state government contract award. The Board’s jurisdiction is contingent upon the timely filing of the protest.

The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board, established under Mississippi Code Annotated §65-1-7, is the designated body for hearing appeals related to public contract awards. When a disappointed bidder files an appeal concerning a state agency contract, the Board’s jurisdiction is triggered. The initial filing must adhere to specific procedural rules, often requiring a formal protest within a set timeframe after the award notification. The Board then reviews the protest, which may involve examining the solicitation documents, the agency’s evaluation process, and the bidder’s grounds for protest. The Board’s authority includes upholding the agency’s decision, overturning it, or recommending corrective actions. The appeal process is designed to ensure fairness and adherence to procurement laws, promoting transparency in state contracting. The ultimate decision of the Board is generally binding, subject to further judicial review as permitted by law. The core principle is to provide an administrative remedy for perceived improprieties in the procurement process before a contract is finalized or performance begins, thereby maintaining the integrity of public spending in Mississippi.

The Mississippi Public Records Act, codified in Mississippi Code Annotated Section 25-61-1 et seq., governs the disclosure of public records. When a request is made for a public record that contains both exempt and non-exempt information, the custodian of the record is required to separate the exempt material from the non-exempt material and provide the non-exempt portion. This principle is often referred to as the “severability” or “redaction” requirement. The law mandates that the exempt portions be redacted, meaning they are obscured or removed, so that the remaining non-exempt information can be disclosed. This ensures that the public’s right to access information is balanced with the protection of sensitive or legally privileged data. The process involves careful review of the record to identify all material that falls under specific exemptions outlined in the Act, such as certain personnel information, ongoing investigation details, or proprietary business information submitted to a state agency. The custodian must then make a good faith effort to provide the disclosable parts of the record.

In Mississippi government contract law, the concept of “substantial performance” is crucial when evaluating whether a contractor has fulfilled their obligations to a degree that warrants payment, despite minor deviations from the contract specifications. Substantial performance is a legal doctrine that allows a party to recover the contract price, less damages caused by any defects or omissions, when they have performed the essential purpose of the contract. This doctrine prevents a party from withholding payment for trivial imperfections. The Mississippi Supreme Court, in cases interpreting contract law, often looks at whether the deviation from the contract is so material that it defeats the object of the parties in making the contract. If the contractor has, in good faith, performed substantially all of the work required by the contract, the other party must pay the contract price, minus the cost to correct the defects or the diminution in value caused by the defects. This is in contrast to a material breach, where the deviation is so significant that it frustrates the fundamental purpose of the agreement, excusing the non-breaching party from further performance and entitling them to damages for the entire breach. Therefore, the key is the materiality of the deviation and whether the contract’s core purpose remains intact.

The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board’s authority to review bid protests is governed by Mississippi Code Annotated Section 31-7-11(3). This section outlines the grounds upon which the Board can consider a protest. A protest must allege a violation of procurement statutes or regulations, or the terms of the solicitation. In this scenario, the protest filed by Magnolia Construction is based on the alleged failure of the City of Hattiesburg to follow the specified evaluation criteria outlined in the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the new municipal stadium project. Specifically, Magnolia Construction contends that the City improperly weighted the “innovative design” component, which was a key factor in the RFP, to favor a competitor whose proposal was not demonstrably more innovative. This directly implicates the procurement process as defined by Mississippi law, falling squarely within the Board’s purview. The Board’s role is to ensure fairness and adherence to established procedures. Therefore, the Board has jurisdiction to hear this protest because it alleges a violation of the procurement process as dictated by the RFP and state law. The other options are incorrect because the protest does not concern a contractual dispute already awarded and in performance, nor does it relate to a pre-bid informational meeting or a post-award contract modification, which would fall under different legal or administrative considerations. The core of the protest is the alleged procedural impropriety during the bid evaluation phase.

The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board, established under Mississippi Code Section 37-101-37, is the designated body for hearing appeals related to state agency procurement decisions. When a contractor files a protest concerning a contract award, the Board has a statutory timeframe within which to act. Specifically, Mississippi Code Section 37-101-37(5) mandates that the Board must render a decision within 30 days after the submission of all briefs and evidence, unless the Board determines that a longer period is necessary and notifies all parties of the extension and the reasons for it. This 30-day period is a crucial procedural safeguard designed to ensure timely resolution of procurement disputes. Failure to adhere to this timeframe without proper notification of an extension can have significant legal implications for the procurement process and the parties involved, potentially leading to the protest being deemed granted or other remedial actions. Understanding this specific statutory deadline is essential for any entity involved in challenging or defending a state agency procurement decision in Mississippi.

The Mississippi Public Records Act, codified in Mississippi Code Section 25-61-1 et seq., governs access to public records held by state and local government entities. When a request is made for records that contain both exempt and non-exempt information, the Act mandates that the custodian of records must separate the exempt material and provide the remainder. This principle is known as the “severability” or “redaction” requirement. The Act does not permit the withholding of an entire record simply because a portion of it is exempt. Instead, the exempt portions are to be redacted or removed, and the non-exempt portions are to be disclosed. This ensures that the public’s right to access information is balanced with the need to protect certain sensitive or confidential data as defined by law. Therefore, the proper procedure is to provide the non-exempt portions of the requested document.

The scenario describes a situation where a Mississippi state agency, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), enters into a contract for specialized environmental consulting services. The contract specifies a fixed price for the entire project. During the course of the work, unforeseen geological conditions are discovered that significantly increase the complexity and cost of the project beyond what was reasonably foreseeable at the time of contracting. The contractor proposes a change order to cover the additional costs. Mississippi law, particularly as reflected in the Mississippi Public Purchasing Law (Mississippi Code Annotated Title 37, Chapter 101, et seq.) and relevant administrative regulations, governs how such situations are handled. For fixed-price contracts, modifications that increase the contract price due to unforeseen circumstances typically require a formal change order process. This process often involves justification of the necessity for the change, a detailed breakdown of the additional costs, and approval from authorized personnel within the state agency. The Mississippi Procurement Manual provides guidance on contract administration and modification. In cases of unforeseen conditions, the ability to recover additional costs on a fixed-price contract is generally limited unless the contract contains specific provisions for such events (e.g., a differing site conditions clause) or if the change is approved through a formal modification process that accounts for the increased scope or cost. The question asks about the legal basis for the contractor’s request for additional compensation. The contractor is seeking to recover costs incurred due to conditions that were not apparent or anticipated. This falls under the purview of contract modification and equitable adjustment, often addressed through change orders. The core legal principle is that the state, by agreeing to the change order, is acknowledging the necessity of the modification and agreeing to the adjusted price. Therefore, the contractor’s request for additional compensation, if properly documented and approved, would be based on a formal change order that modifies the original fixed-price agreement to account for the unforeseen conditions. This is a standard mechanism for adjusting government contracts when the scope or cost changes due to factors not initially contemplated.

The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board, established under Mississippi Code Section 37-101-13, is the designated body for hearing appeals related to state agency procurement decisions. When a bidder believes a procurement process was flawed or a decision was made improperly, they can file an appeal with this board. The board’s role is to review the procurement record, hear arguments from both the aggrieved bidder and the state agency, and then issue a ruling. This ruling can affirm the agency’s decision, overturn it, or remand the matter for further proceedings. The board’s decisions are critical in ensuring fairness and compliance with Mississippi’s procurement laws and regulations, such as those found in the Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board Rules and Regulations. Understanding the procedural steps and the board’s authority is paramount for any entity seeking to challenge or defend a state procurement award. The board’s jurisdiction is specific to state-level procurements, and its decisions are subject to judicial review in the appropriate state court.

The Mississippi Public Procurement Review Board, established under Mississippi Code Section 31-7-3, is the designated body for hearing appeals related to state agency procurement decisions. When a protest is filed concerning a contract award, the board’s jurisdiction is triggered. The Mississippi Administrative Procedures Act (MAPA), specifically Mississippi Code Section 25-43-101 et seq., governs the procedural aspects of administrative hearings, including those conducted by the Procurement Review Board. This includes requirements for notice, evidence presentation, and the rendering of decisions. The board’s authority extends to reviewing the procurement process for compliance with Mississippi’s procurement laws and regulations, such as those found in Title 31, Chapter 7 of the Mississippi Code. The board can affirm, modify, or reverse the agency’s decision, or remand the matter for further proceedings. Decisions of the board are subject to judicial review in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, as provided by MAPA. The core principle is that the board acts as an administrative appellate body to ensure fair and legal procurement practices within Mississippi state government.