In this case, ODF argues that its letter of January 18, 2008, in which it expressly informed the applicant that it would not exercise its option of one year extension, was the final order that triggered the 60-day filing period and that the applicant`s application for judicial review was not filed until July 1, 2008, well after that 60-day period. The applicant replies that ODF`s decision not to renew the contract was finalized until June 9, 2008, when the one-month renewal contract was executed. This letter is the final decision that is being challenged, the applicant argues, that the application he filed three weeks later is timely. The relevant facts are undisputed. Each year, ODF maintains the services of dozens of fire crews of 20 people to send forest fires to the federal states, the federal states and private land. It uses public procurement procedures to secure these fire departments. During the reporting period, ODF applied the contracting rules set out in the Oregon Public Contracting Code, ORS Chapter 279A and 279B. Please contact your local regional office for information on local facilities and resources for forest fires. This applies to equipment and personnel not currently included in the Interagency Firefighting Crew Agreement or in the Confederation`s VIPR agreements. On January 18, 2008, ODF sent the applicant a letter stating that the applicant`s hourly rate for the 2008 season exceeded $45, not only denying the applicant a one-year extension of the contract for the 2008 season, but also the current agreement. The letter provided that the application of a $45 price cap to all firefighters` contracts, after reviewing the price in the “best interest” of the ODF and its cooperating agencies, had been applied.
On 12 February 2008, ODF informed the applicant that it was cancelling its information and that it was invovoicing the one-month extension provided for by section G.3.2 of the RFP and that it had extended the agreement until 31 October 2008. Concretely, it states in the letter: Protection Contract Services Unit (PCSU)Email: email@example.com After Work Phone: 503-931-5793 This conclusion is supported by ODF`s subsequent communication with the applicant. For example, on 2 May 2008, Burke Mayer, ODF`s public procurement officer, informed the applicant in an e-mail that “decisions regarding further extension of the 2007 [agreement] are not addressed after the October 2008 termination date. In view of the context in which the January 18 letter was sent, we therefore conclude that this letter was not, in this case, a final injunction of judicial review, which triggered the 60-day legal period for judicial review. At the earliest, the Agency`s decision became final following the issuance of the 9 June 2008 agreement concluding the new agreement between ODF and the applicant (following the acceptance of the ODF offer by the applicant in the letter of 12 February). The final order was probably not placed until later, when ODF published its e-mail on June 13, in which it stated: “[e]ffective 06-13-08 the 2008 Award is done.” This e-mail, sent by an ODF employee to all firefighter contractors, including the applicant, states that if a contractor has not yet received an offer to renew his one-year contract, he will not get one, since ODF has concluded his contracts for 2008. At that time, ODF`s decision not to grant the applicant a one-year extension did not require further action by the Agency and precluded further review of the matter by the Agency. However, we do not have to decide whether it was the June 9 e-mail or the June 13 e-mail that constituted the final judicial review order, since within two years the applicant`s application for judicial review was filed within 60 days. We therefore conclude that the Tribunal did not err in rejecting ODF`s assertion that the applicant`s application for judicial review was not made in time.