St. James Security Services, LLC v. Autoridad de Energía Eléctrica y otro
2023 TSPR 149
P.R.2023Background
- The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (AEE) issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) in November 2021 seeking bids for specialized security and surveillance services at its northern facilities, which are subject to rigorous federal and state security requirements.
- St. James Security Services, LLC participated in the bidding process but was not awarded the contract, as a lower-cost provider (Bridge Security Services) was selected.
- St. James challenged the award, filing for administrative reconsideration and subsequent judicial review, arguing that the AEE's notification was procedurally defective and did not comply with the law governing non-professional services procurement (Ley de Compras de ASG).
- The AEE and lower courts debated which procedural law applied for review: the more rigorous Ley de Procedimiento Administrativo Uniforme (LPAU) for professional services or the Ley de Compras de ASG applicable to non-professional services.
- The Supreme Court was tasked to determine whether the contracted security services constituted “professional services” (triggering use of LPAU) or “non-professional services” (triggering use of the Ley de Compras de ASG), with major consequences for notification and judicial review timelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are AEE's contracted security services “professional” under Puerto Rico law? | St. James: The services are "non-professional" per law definitions; thus, ASG law applies. | AEE: Due to specialized requirements (TWIC, federal regs, advanced training), these are "professional services," invoking LPAU. | Court: Services are "professional" due to the specialized skills and requirements imposed. |
| Did AEE’s notification comply with due process requirements for administrative review? | St. James: Notice was deficient under ASG law, so appeal clock never started. | AEE: Notice complied with LPAU; thus, deadlines for review applied and were missed. | Court: Notice met LPAU requirements, not ASG law, so untimely judicial review deprived court of jurisdiction. |
| Does the ASG law apply to AEE (an otherwise exempt entity) when acquiring non-professional services? | St. James: ASG law applies to AEE’s non-professional service contracts, requiring specific notice and review processes. | AEE: ASG law does not apply since services purchased are professional due to high-level requirements. | Court: ASG law does not apply; LPAU governs because services are professional. |
| Should the judicial review be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to a late filing under the applicable law? | St. James: No; notice was defective, therefore not untimely. | AEE: Yes; filing was outside LPAU timeframe, thus no jurisdiction. | Court: Yes; judicial review dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Super Asphalt v. AFI, 206 DPR 803 (P.R. 2021) (administrative agencies have discretion in evaluating bids and contract awards)
- CD Builders v. Mun. Las Piedras, 196 DPR 336 (P.R. 2016) (judicial review of bid awards is limited to abuses of discretion)
- Ranger Am. v. Loomis Fargo, 171 DPR 670 (P.R. 2007) (statutes regulating private security services are to ensure only qualified persons may offer such services)