You lost your bid for a state contract. Can you appeal to District Court?

You ran the numbers, you put in the work, you submitted a bid that should have won. The agency picked someone else. Now what?

For most disappointed bidders in Texas state procurements, the answer to the title question is no. Sovereign immunity blocks the courthouse door. When HHSC, TxDOT, DPS, or any other state agency picks the wrong bidder, the remedy is generally limited to the agency's own internal protest process — where the agency reviews its own decision.

The Texas Legislature waived sovereign immunity for cities. Sue a city over a procurement decision under the Local Government Code, and a judge will hear the case. The Legislature has not done the same for state agencies. That is a policy choice, and it is not a small one.

That has been the rule for years. It is still mostly the rule today. But there is a narrow exception called ultra vires, and a case currently pending at the Fifteenth Court of Appeals is going to tell us, in concrete terms, how wide that exception actually is. For any Texas business that has ever lost a state contract — or is about to bid on one — it is worth understanding what is in front of that court.

Sovereign immunity, in plain English

The State of Texas cannot be sued unless it consents. That is the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and it is the reason most challenges to state agency contract awards die at the courthouse door. When a disappointed bidder sues HHSC, the agency files a plea to the jurisdiction asserting immunity, and the case is over before discovery even begins.

The Legislature has carved out plenty of consents — the Tort Claims Act, the Local Government Code's procurement provisions, the Whistleblower Act, and so on. But the Legislature has not consented to suits challenging the contract decisions of most state agencies.

The exception: ultra vires

Ultra vires is a Latin phrase meaning “beyond the powers.” In Texas, it is the narrow exception to sovereign immunity that lets a private litigant sue a state official in her official capacity when she has acted “without legal authority” — meaning, in violation of a statute that constrains her discretion.

The foundational case is City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009). The relief available in an ultra vires suit is limited. No damages are recoverable. What a court can award is prospective injunctive relief — an order requiring the official to stop the unlawful conduct going forward. That sounds modest. In the right case, an injunction halting an unlawful procurement is anything but.

The line that controls the analysis comes from the Texas Supreme Court a few years later, and it is the one to memorize: “Only when [] absolute discretion — free decision-making without any constraints — is granted are ultra vires suits absolutely barred.” Hous. Belt & Term. Ry. Co. v. City of Houston, 487 S.W.3d 154, 163 (Tex. 2016).

Read that twice. Sovereign immunity protects discretionary judgments, not lawbreaking. If the Legislature has given the official meaningful constraints — particularly statutory directives using the word “shall” — and the official has ignored them, the courthouse door is open.

Where this gets hard

For most procurements, that is still a tough standard to meet. State agencies have broad statutory discretion to determine “best value” under Texas Government Code § 2155.144. Arguing to a court that the agency picked the wrong winner will lose. That is precisely the kind of discretionary call sovereign immunity protects. Arguing that the agency exercised its discretion poorly — that the scoring was unfair, that the wrong factor got too much weight, that the losing bid was better — will lose for the same reason.

The ultra vires question is different. It is not whether the agency reached the wrong result. It is whether the agency had legal authority to reach the result at all. That is a statutory question, not a judgment question, and the answer turns on what the Legislature said the agency was required to do.

So what happens when the Legislature has layered specific, mandatory directives on top of the general best-value framework — and the agency has documentably ignored them?

That is the question in front of the Fifteenth Court of Appeals right now. The case involves one of the largest procurements the State of Texas has ever run, and the trial court did something that almost never happens in a state-procurement dispute: it ruled for the disappointed bidders and halted the entire procurement.

More on that case in Part 2.

---

Bill Cobb is a founding partner of Cobb & Gervasi PLLC and the former Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation at the Texas Office of the Attorney General.