Petition for Review of Agency Decision 
Christopher R. Hogle, Richard D. Flint, Christopher D. Mack,
Salt Lake City, for petitioner
D. Boren, Jacey Skinner, Nathan R. Marigoni, Salt Lake City,
for respondent Utah Communications Authority
R. Lund, J. Michael Bailey, Brandon J. Mark, Adam E.
Weinacker, Salt Lake City, for respondent Harris Corporation
JUSTICE DURRANT authored the opinion of the Court, in which
ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE LEE, JUSTICE HIMONAS, JUSTICE
PETERSEN, and JUDGE PARKER joined.
recused himself, JUSTICE PEARCE does not participate herein;
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE PAUL PARKER sat.
DURRANT, CHIEF JUSTICE
On June 27, 2019, we issued an order denying Petitioner
Motorola Solutions, Inc.'s Rule 17 Motion for Stay
Pending Review. We now explain our reasoning for denying the
motion. In the motion, Motorola asked us to stay further
proceedings related to Respondent Utah Communications
Authority's (UCA) efforts to hire a private contractor to
implement a new statewide emergency public radio system.
Specifically, Motorola requested the stay to stop UCA from
entering into a contract (for the purpose of implementing the
emergency radio system) with Respondent Harris Corporation
until Motorola's appeal protesting UCA's decision to
award that contract had been resolved. UCA and Harris argued,
however, that Motorola's motion for a stay was moot. We
UCA and Harris argued that Motorola's motion for a stay
was moot because UCA's executive director had already
entered into a contract with Harris. In response, Motorola
did not dispute that Harris and the UCA executive director
had signed a contract. Instead, Motorola argued that no
contract could be formed until the UCA board had approved it.
Because we concluded that the UCA executive director had
authority to enter into contracts on UCA's behalf, we
held that Motorola's motion requesting a stay was moot.
For this reason, we denied the motion.
In 2018, UCA sought proposed bids for the implementation of a
statewide public safety emergency radio system. After
considering the proposed bids, including bids from Motorola
and Harris, UCA announced it had accepted Harris's bid
and would therefore begin contract negotiations with Harris.
Motorola challenged UCA's decision by lodging three
protests, based on alleged violations of various Utah
Procurement Code provisions, with a designated protest
officer. All three protests were denied. Motorola appealed
the denial of these protests to the Utah Procurement Policy
Board, which subsequently affirmed the denials. Motorola then
appealed the Policy Board's decision to the Utah Court of
Under the Procurement Code, the lodging of a protest
automatically stays all procurement proceedings until all
administrative and judicial remedies are
exhausted. But the Procurement Code also allows a
procurement unit-in this case, UCA-to lift the stay where the
head of the procurement unit (1) consults with the unit's
attorney and (2) "makes a written determination that
award of the contract without delay is necessary to protect
the best interest of the procurement unit or the
state."Using the authority granted in the
Procurement Code, UCA's acting executive director lifted