I just took a moment to read through the city's code for disposal of surplus property to see if, as a non-lawyer, I could validate MSTAR's claims that they have a shot at legal action should the sale of iProvo be approved as currently constituted. After perusing Title 3, Chapter 3.04 of the city code, it seems like they don't really have much to lean on under that section. The mayor has broad authority to enter into contracts and ask the council to approve them after the fact and many of the normal requirements for the addition of properties to the Surplus Property List can be waived by council resolution. Even the requirement for a cash purchase can be waived by resolution.
It's possible that some section of state law trumps the city code regarding the sale of real property, but I don't seem to be able to find it. Utah Code 10-7-86 makes adoption of the Utah Procurement Code optional, not mandatory and large chunks of Utah Code 10-8-2 seems to be word-for-word what's in the city code. As much as I dislike the way in which this RFP was conducted, I'm having a hard time finding anything illegal about it, though this doesn't preclude anyone from filing a civil suit to block the sale.
I'm curious to know exactly what MSTAR's argument is and welcome any comments that might shed light on it.