Utah Administrative Code Topic - Administrative Services
I. Overview of Administrative Services in Utah
A. The Department of Administrative Services (DAS)
The Utah Department of Administrative Services is a cabinet-level agency that provides internal support to other state agencies. Its role is essential for efficient and compliant operations within the state government. The department encompasses several divisions, including:
Division of Financeensuring
Division of Purchasing and General Services
Division of Fleet Operations
Division of Archives and Records Service
Division of Risk Management
Division of Facilities Construction and Management (DFCM)
These divisions are regulated under Title 63A of the Utah Code and corresponding chapters in the Utah Administrative Code (UAC).
II. Major Administrative Rules under Administrative Services
Here are some major topics within the Administrative Services rules:
1. Procurement and Purchasing Rules (Division of Purchasing)
Utah Admin. Code R33 – Rules governing state procurement.
Key Provisions:
Competitive bidding processes
Exemptions and sole source contracts
Appeals and protests of contract awards
Ethics in public procurement
Example Case:
Alsco Inc. v. State of Utah (2004)
Issue: Alsco challenged the award of a uniform rental contract, arguing the bid process was unfair.
Outcome: The court upheld the award, emphasizing the discretion afforded to the purchasing agency if rules are followed.
Importance: Reinforced the need to follow procedures outlined in R33 and highlighted limited judicial interference in procurement unless abuse of discretion is shown.
2. Records Management and GRAMA (Government Records Access and Management Act)
Utah Admin. Code R35 – Implements GRAMA provisions and rules for access, classification, and retention of records.
Key Provisions:
Classification of records: public, private, protected, or controlled
Access to records by the public
Appeals process for denied access
Example Case:
Deseret News Publishing Co. v. Salt Lake County (2008)
Issue: Whether certain internal investigation reports were public under GRAMA.
Outcome: Court ruled portions were public, balancing transparency and privacy.
Importance: Clarified GRAMA application and how agencies must classify and disclose records.
3. Facilities Construction and Management
Utah Admin. Code R23 – Governs the Division of Facilities Construction and Management (DFCM).
Key Provisions:
Project bidding and construction contracts
Facilities maintenance and leasing
Energy management and performance contracting
Example Case:
Big D Construction Corp. v. State of Utah (1995)
Issue: Dispute over a construction bid protest for a public university facility.
Outcome: The court supported DFCM’s right to reject bids in the state’s interest.
Importance: Reinforced DFCM’s broad authority under R23 in managing state construction projects.
4. Risk Management and Insurance
Utah Admin. Code R37 – Covers the administration of insurance and liability protections for state entities and employees.
Key Provisions:
State risk pool operations
Claims against the state
Coverage limits and exclusions
Example Case:
Lifferth v. State of Utah (2002)
Issue: Whether the state’s self-insurance under R37 covered a tort claim by a state employee.
Outcome: Court held that coverage was limited and the plaintiff's claim was barred under state immunity rules.
Importance: Interpreted the limits of the Risk Management Fund and sovereign immunity.
5. Finance and Fiscal Rules
Utah Admin. Code R25 – Rules under the Division of Finance governing:
Travel reimbursements
Payroll policies
Financial reporting and audits
Internal control standards
These rules ensure fiscal responsibility and standardization across state agencies.
III. Legal Framework
The authority for administrative rulemaking and enforcement comes from:
Utah Code Title 63A – Statutory authority for the Department of Administrative Services
Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act (Title 63G, Chapter 3) – Sets the process for creating, amending, and repealing administrative rules
Utah Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Decisions – Interpreting the legality and limits of these rules
Administrative rules, while not statutes, have the force of law if properly enacted under statutory authority. Agencies must act within their enabling statutes or risk having their actions overturned by courts.
IV. Due Process and Challenges to Administrative Action
Agencies like DAS must provide due process when taking actions that impact individuals or businesses. Common legal challenges include:
Bid protests
Denial of access to records under GRAMA
Allegations of arbitrary or capricious agency actions
Utah courts apply principles from Chevron-style deference but may also engage in "Skidmore deference", depending on the issue and formality of the agency decision-making.
Conclusion
The Utah Administrative Code's provisions on Administrative Services provide a framework for the efficient, lawful, and ethical operation of state government. These rules ensure that public funds are used responsibly, records are managed transparently, and state operations comply with best practices.
Case law shows that while agencies like DAS have wide discretion, their actions are still subject to judicial review for fairness, legality, and due process compliance. Agencies must stay within their legal authority, adhere to proper procedures, and respect constitutional rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments