WILLIAM DONALD SCHAEFER, Governor                      Ch. 48

(I)  ACTED IN GOOD FAITH;

(II)  DID NOT DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTE TO A VIOLATION
OF THIS DIVISION II; AND

(III)  HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE VIOLATION BEFORE
THE PROCUREMENT CONTRACT WAS AWARDED.

(C) CONTRACTS VOIDABLE FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.

(1)  WHENEVER A PROCUREMENT VIOLATES THIS DIVISION II,
THE BOARD MAY DETERMINE THAT THE PROCUREMENT CONTRACT IS
VOIDABLE, RATHER THAN VOID, IF THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

(I)  ALL PARTIES ACTED IN GOOD FAITH;

(II)  RATIFICATION OF THE PROCUREMENT CONTRACT
WOULD NOT UNDERMINE THE PURPOSES OF THIS DIVISION II; AND

(III)  THE VIOLATION OR SERIES OF VIOLATIONS WAS
INSIGNIFICANT OR OTHERWISE DID NOT PREVENT SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE
WITH THIS DIVISION II.

(2)  WHENEVER A PROCUREMENT CONTRACT IS VOIDABLE UNDER
THIS SUBSECTION AND THE CONTRACTOR HAS NOT ACTED IN VIOLATION OF
THIS DIVISION II, THE UNIT MAY:

(I)  RATIFY THE PROCUREMENT CONTRACT IF THE UNIT
DETERMINES THAT RATIFICATION IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
STATE; OR

(II)  VOID THE PROCUREMENT CONTRACT AND AWARD
THE CONTRACTOR COMPENSATION FOR ACTUAL EXPENSES REASONABLY
INCURRED UNDER THE CONTRACT, PLUS A REASONABLE PROFIT.

(3)  WHENEVER A PROCUREMENT CONTRACT IS VOIDABLE UNDER
THIS SUBSECTION AND THE CONTRACTOR HAS ACTED IN VIOLATION OF THIS
DIVISION II, THE UNIT:

(I)  MAY VOID THE PROCUREMENT CONTRACT; OR

(II)  WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE STATE'S RIGHT TO
APPROPRIATE DAMAGES, MAY RATIFY THE PROCUREMENT CONTRACT IF THE
UNIT DETERMINES THAT RATIFICATION IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
STATE.

REVISOR'S NOTE: This section is new language derived
without substantive change from former SF § 11-107.

In subsection (c)(1) of this section, the words
"voidable, rather than void" are substituted for the
former words "merely voidable", for clarity.

- 1585 -