70-37000-26-CP368_BU_370_Sole_Source_Determination_Bardacke_Allison_Miller.pdf.PDF

2026 Sole Source Form

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

SOLE SOURCE REQUEST AND DETERMINATION FORM

A sole source determination is not effective until the sole source request for determination has been posted for thirty (30) calendar days without Protest and subsequently approved in writing by the State Purchasing Agent. The foregoing requirement is regardless of whether the sole source request for determination has been signed by the Agency.

I. Name of Agency: New Mexico Office of the Secretary of State (SOS)

Agency Chief Procurement Officer: Anthony Chavez, Chief Financial Officer

Telephone Number: (505) 827-3666

Agency Contact for this request: Anthony Chavez

Email Address: anthony.chavez@sos.nm.gov

II. Name of prospective Contractor:

Bardacke Allison Miller, LLP

SHARE Vendor Number: 0000124263 001 1

Address of prospective Contractor:

141 E. Palace Avenue, Suite 200, Santa Fe, NM 87501

Contact Name, Telephone Number and Email Address:

Justin Miller; (505) 995-8000 ext. 102; justin@bardackeallison.com

Amount of prospective contract before tax: $225,000.00 (proposed not-to-exceed amount)

Estimated tax amount (tax is subject to change): $18,421.88, based on 8.1875% GRT

III. Term of prospective contract:

Effective upon final approval through June 30, 2028 (proposed)

Note: Please refer to §13-1-150 for contract term limits.

If this is an amendment request to an existing contract, include current sole source posting number issued by SPD: N/A — Contract No. 27-370-4000-00013 was initially awarded as a professional-services small purchase and did not have a sole-source posting number.

Docusign Envelope ID: D30B359C-D1EE-88B3-8153-1FCB036DCB91 mailto:anthony.chavez@sos.nm.gov mailto:justin@bardackeallison.com

IV. If this is a Sole Source for new or existing IT software licensing subscription(s), Agency is required to upload the Contractor’s draft Service Level Agreement (SLA) with the Sole Source online submission.

V. Agency is required to provide the detailed scope of work (or amendment) for this sole source. Scope of work must match the scope included in the services determination and Horizons declination.

The Contractor shall provide legal representation and related services to SOS in connection with New Mexico Forward Party, et al. v. Maggie Toulouse Oliver, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02286-MIS-SCY, pending in the United States District Court for the District of New

Mexico, and any directly related appellate proceedings. The work includes reviewing claims, defenses, pleadings, evidence, and applicable law; developing litigation strategy;

advising SOS; preparing and filing answers, pleadings, motions, responses, briefs, memoranda, and other submissions; addressing preliminary or permanent injunctive relief and other expedited or dispositive matters; conducting discovery; representing SOS in conferences, negotiations, settlement discussions, depositions, hearings, trial, and appeals;

coordinating with witnesses, experts, consultants, court reporters, process servers, SOS personnel, the New Mexico Department of Justice, and other authorized counsel or governmental entities; and performing other legal services directly related to the litigation as requested and authorized by SOS. Services will be provided as needed and within the approved not-to-exceed amount. Litigation-related expenses require prior written authorization and itemized support.

VI. Provide a detailed explanation of the criteria developed and specified by the agency as necessary to perform and/or fulfill the contract and upon which the state agency reviewed available sources. (Do not use “technical jargon;” use plain English. Do not tailor the criteria simply to exclude other contractors if it is not rationally related to the purpose of the contract.)

SOS requires counsel that: (1) is licensed and in good standing to practice in New Mexico and admitted to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico and any court hearing an appeal; (2) has substantial federal litigation and election-law or constitutional-law experience; (3) is free of conflicts and able to meet accelerated briefing, hearing, discovery, trial, and appellate deadlines; (4) can preserve continuity in positions, strategy, attorney-client communications, and work product already developed in this case;

(5) has immediate command of the pleadings, evidentiary record, procedural history, court orders, and pending preliminary-injunction issues; (6) can staff the matter efficiently through the merits and any appeal; and (7) will comply with the hourly rates, expense controls, invoicing requirements, and total compensation limit approved by SOS and

GSD/SPD. These criteria are directly tied to protecting SOS in this active federal case.

VII. Provide a detailed, sufficient explanation of the reasons, qualifications, proprietary rights or unique capabilities of the prospective contractor that makes their company the only source capable of providing the required professional service, general service, construction or item(s) of tangible personal property. (Please do not state the source is the “best” source or the “least costly” source. Those factors do not justify a “sole source.”)

Bardacke Allison Miller, LLP is the only source capable of continuing this specific representation without a material transition, duplication of legal work, and litigation risk.

Under Contract No. 27-370-4000-00013, the firm has already undertaken the defense, analyzed the claims and record, developed litigation strategy, prepared time-sensitive submissions, and acquired detailed knowledge of the facts, legal theories, agency operations, opposing arguments, and court schedule. As of August 18, 2026, the firm estimated approximately $49,000 in fees and costs incurred, including work not yet invoiced. It estimated an additional $15,000 to $20,000 through the preliminary-injunction hearing, approximately $75,000 if the matter ends at that stage, and $175,000 or more if the matter proceeds on the merits or appeal. The firm anticipates an appeal regardless of the preliminary-injunction outcome. Replacing counsel now would require another firm to reconstruct the case, review the same record and prior work, develop a new strategy, and become prepared while court deadlines continue to run. That transition would create duplicative expense, delay, risk inconsistent positions, and potential prejudice to SOS. The determination is based on continuity in this pending matter and the firm’s case-specific knowledge—not merely on urgency, preference, price, or a general assertion that the firm is superior.

VIII. Provide a detailed, sufficient explanation of how the professional service, general service, construction or item(s) of tangible personal property is/are unique and how this uniqueness is substantially related to the intended purpose of the contract.

The unique service is uninterrupted representation in an existing, active federal election-law case by the lawyers who have already performed the substantive legal analysis and developed privileged work product and strategy for SOS. Although other law firms may offer litigation services generally, no other firm possesses the same accumulated knowledge of this record, the Agency’s defenses, work already completed, communications, deadlines, and strategic decisions. This case-specific continuity is substantially related to the contract’s purpose because SOS must respond consistently and promptly to preliminary-injunction proceedings, merits litigation, discovery, trial, and a likely appeal. Maintaining current counsel protects the integrity of the defense, avoids paying a successor to duplicate substantial work, and reduces the risk of delay or prejudice.

IX. Provide a narrative description of the agency’s due diligence in determining the basis for the procurement, including procedures used by the agency to conduct a review of available sources such as researching trade publications, industry newsletters and the internet;; contacting similar service providers; and reviewing the State Purchasing

Divisions’ Statewide Price Agreements. Include a list of businesses contacted (do not state that no other businesses were contacted), date of contact, method of contact

(telephone, mail, e-mail, other), and documentation demonstrating an explanation of why those businesses could not or would not, under any circumstances, perform the contract; or an explanation of why the agency has determined that no businesses other than the prospective contractor can perform the contract.

SOS reviewed the active case, immediate and anticipated court obligations, the executed contract file, work already performed, current expenditures, and counsel’s written cost and duration estimates. Before the initial engagement, SOS confirmed that the New Mexico

Department of Justice and GSD Risk Management would not provide or appoint counsel.

SOS then consulted the State Purchasing Division and Contracts Review Bureau on July

29, 2026. Based on that guidance, SOS used Contract No. 27-370-4000-00013 as a limited initial engagement and monitored expenditures while the case developed. The litigation progressed more quickly and required more substantive work than could reasonably be quantified at the outset. The firm’s August 19, 2026 written estimate now supports a longer term and a higher not-to-exceed amount. SOS also reviewed whether a statewide price agreement or a new competitive engagement could provide uninterrupted representation.

Neither would transfer the privileged work product, case knowledge, strategy, and preparation already held by current counsel. A new firm would necessarily duplicate work and assume the matter during active preliminary-injunction proceedings and anticipated appellate deadlines. Accordingly, SOS determined that continuity with Bardacke Allison

Miller, LLP is the only source that can fulfill the present requirement without material transition risk.

Agency certifies this sole source submission complies with NMSA 1978, Sections 13-1-28 through 13-1-199, the New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) and Governmental Conduct

Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 10-16-1 through 10-16-18.

Certified by: Date:____________________

Agency Chief Procurement Officer

Certifying Legal Sufficiency by: Date: ____________________

Agency Legal/General Counsel

Agency Approval by: Date: ____________________

Cabinet Secretary/Agency or Entity Head or Designee

APPROVED: Date:____________________

State Purchasing Agent

If this sole source is being submitted by a governmental agency or governmental entity not under the authority of the State Purchasing Agent, the State Purchasing Agent’s signature is not required. The signature line may be removed from this form or marked as N/A. Hard Copy

Documentation for Courtesy Postings do not need to be submitted to SPD for approval.

Docusign Envelope ID: D30B359C-D1EE-88B3-8153-1FCB036DCB91

08/24/2026

08/24/2026

08/24/2026

I. Name of Agency: New Mexico Office of the Secretary of State (SOS)