FirstDigital Telecom, LLC v. Procurement Policy Board, 345 P.3d 767

The Utah Board of Regents issued an RFP for telecommunications services; FirstDigital submitted a proposal and was one of two finalists.
Board awarded the contract to Integra on August 12, 2013; FirstDigital’s president McDougal complained by emails on August 14 and August 30 asserting evaluation errors and threatening a protest.
McDougal later characterized the August 14 email as a formal protest; the Protest Officer, McRae, ruled the protest untimely (should have been filed by August 19) and that the August 14 email did not clearly constitute a protest.
FirstDigital appealed to the Procurement Policy Board chair within seven days but failed to post the statutorily required security deposit/bond at the time of filing; it later tendered $500 and then the correct amount ($15,250) after the deadline.
The chair dismissed the appeal for failure to timely file the required deposit; FirstDigital argued it substantially complied and that the Board delayed providing contract information needed to calculate the bond.
The Utah Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, finding no timely posting of the security deposit and no obligation on the Protest Officer to inform FirstDigital of the deposit amount beyond directing it to the controlling statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Procurement Policy Board erred by dismissing FirstDigital’s appeal for failure to post the required security deposit/bond when FirstDigital later posted partial and then full payment after the appeal deadline	FirstDigital: Substantial compliance; posted funds once it learned correct amount; dismissal was arbitrary and capricious	Board: Statute requires posting at time of appeal; late payments do not cure noncompliance; dismissal mandatory	Held: Dismissal was required. FirstDigital did not post the bond at the time of appeal; late payments were untimely and dismissal was not arbitrary or capricious
Whether the Protest Officer had a duty to inform FirstDigital of the required deposit/bond amount	FirstDigital: McRae should have provided the contract amount or bond calculation, which caused delay	Board: Protest Officer only needed to inform protestor of right to review and applicable statute; no duty to calculate or disclose deposit amount	Held: No duty to inform beyond directing FirstDigital to statutory provisions; McRae met his obligation

Salt Lake County v. Holliday Water Co., 234 P.3d 1105 (Utah 2010) (statutory construction applies the version of a statute in effect at the time of the events)
Taghipour v. Jerez, 52 P.3d 1252 (Utah 2002) (authority for applying law in effect at time of events)