Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF-~HEAI-I-ORNEY GENERAL• FT~AES AUSTIN """"Z
.
.iionorsblc D, C. Gror
ixate High-uay zn~inecr Depnrtnent
!i%ias Higzh-:lay
Austin, '&%a~
Dear SirI
authorized t0 the reject
in 3her:mn Couuty. requested the Coa- *2 a e -
.- -.- ,::. .: [59] Honorable D. C. Greer, ?a&e 2 -'
per cubic yard for Class '*An concrete instead of.l?# per cubic yard, his bid would have been ap?roximtely $2,000.00 hi~gher than th8 next .~ lc+ieat bid."
The reminder of your letter is devoted to references to statutes and itea of the standard Specifiostions published by the Xighvzay Comission. Ke agpreoiate your cooperation and assistance in'gointing out to us'the authority which you consider pertin.ent.to the. wc?stion.at baud.
The 'first sentence of Article 60741, Vernon's
Aunotated Civil Statutes of Texas, states that "The State High;tay Department shall~ have the right to reject any sod all such bids : ., .n It thus appears that the Legislature has delegated to tha~Highway'Consfssion the right on its own motion to'reject any bid which it does not desire to con- sider. You state in your opinion request that. the award of contract.covering the construction oi' the projeot involved has,not yet been rende. It is therefore u~~~csssary tb con- -sider this point further. In accordance With the above quot- ed provision of krtiole 66741, we find the following pro- vision in itea 3.1 under the hesding "Award and Execution ol Contract" of the Standard Specificat~ions: ~.
** * * Until the award of the contract is Iiiade, the right will be reserved to reject any or all roposals and to waive such technicalities as e considered for the best interest of the xt! ='
The folloning provision is'tcken fros Iten 2.10 of Itea.2, under the hesdin g Tnstructions to Didders" OS the Standard Specifications: I **. * * Drcposals'in which the prices are
obviously.unbalanoed oay,be rejected *. + *:n The informtion which you have subzitted to us in- dicates beyond doubt that Zr. &rhhfll*s bid.of 17d uer cubic yard-on Class I,A** concrete not only. is in er&o% ‘but also is $0 unreasonable a$ to imediately op?car ridiculous. It is obvious that no contractor T,vould submit intentlonnlly uny such bid; The faotthat :A-. ?arnhill's or seriously bid on Clans “hs coocrcte is patently erroneous distinguishes the fact situation which you have presented to us fro3tPcse c332s iuvolvihg iatentionsl unierbids or si~glc errors of calculntio:i. -.~, _
fionorable D. C. Greer, Page 3
~8, above stated it appear8 that the Highway Coti- alsslon is authorized by law to. *eject any bid which it does aat see fit to consider. The highv;ay Comission itself has xcco&zed the a!ithority thus conferred upon it and has in- cluded in its Standard Bpeclfications a provision directly fu line with the atatutes. Se btilieve that under this au- t1lorit.y alone tiie’iii&imay Cosnission is authorized to reject the bid iu qUestiOn.
It doe8 not appear upon the inforxatlon furnished us that any other ‘classes inclu,ded in .Xr. Saruhillls bid are out of line or unbalanced. Taking his bid on Class “A* concrete alone, it unquestionably is unbalanced. in so far as its ratio to the usual and custotiry bids on the sama aaterial is. coticarred. :‘;e. beliove that a d.stake so obvious ~111 coze under .the quoted provision of Itex 2.10~of Itex 2 of the Standard GpecIfications.
For the reasons stated above, it is the opinion of thf8 departsent that the Highway Com~~Lssion is authorized to reject the bid of .J’. 3;. Earnhill atid to return to him his .proposal g3arauty and award the contract to the next lowest bidder.
Youre Very truLy ix : r?f
APPROVEDOCT 19, 194G