Durbin, 560 F.Supp. 654, 661 (E.D.Pa.1983). See generally Curtis, 811 F.2d at 1376 and cases cited therein (summarizing both majority and minority views). We need not decide which : line of cases New Mexico would follow. BC & L did not meet all substantive and proeedural requirements because it was not licensed at the time of bidding. Under either the majority or the minority view, it did not have a property interest protected by the due process clause. Its due process arguments must therefore fail. ? However, BC & L had the right to procedures established by the regulations under the Procurement Code for all bidders and an implied contract with the State Purchasing Office that all bidders would be treated fairly. See Planning & Design Solutions, 118 N.M. at 714-15, 885 P.2d at 635-36 (<HOLDING>). The regulations clearly provide that a
holding that a denial of a bid protest without holding a hearing did not deprive a disappointed bidder of any property rights because there is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a government contract unless the contract actually is awarded holding that unsuccessful bidder is awarded its bid preparation costs because the government violated its implied contract to have the involved bids fairly and honestly considered  holding that the losing bidder has standing to challenge the award of a government procurement contract holding that city had implied contract with bidder to treat bidder fairly holding that if the government is obligated to rebid the contract and the unsuccessful bidder could compete for the contract once again and therefore has an economic interest and standing to challenge the award