Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

. The Attorney General of Texas JIM MATTOX Nay 9, 1984 Attorney General Supreme Cowl Building Mr. Ron Jackson Opinion No. JM-155 P. 0. BOX 12548 Executive Director Austin. TX. 7571% 254s 512/47w5o1 Texas Youth Council lk: Whether the Professional Telex SlwS74.1S57 P. 0. Box 9999 Services Procurement Act pre- Telecopier 51214750288 Auetin. Texas 78766' eludes an inquiry into archi- tectural or engineering fees 714 Jackeon. Suite 700 Dallas. TX. 75202-4505 Dear Mr. Jackson: 21417428944 You inform us that the Texas Youth Comission has developed a questionnaire which you intend to submit to architects and engineers 4824 Alhla Ave.. Sulte 160 being considered for -employment by your agency. The questionnaire El Paso. TX. 79905-2783 Bly5333uu elicits information regarding professional fees which engineers or architects vould find appropriate for the project being considered. You ask us txio questions. First, you ask 11 Texas. Suite 700 Aiston. TX. 77002-3111 [e]hould‘the Professional Servfces Procurement Act 713Q2M555 be ,interpreted to prohibft the inclueion of the following question in the proposed Texas Youth SO5 Broadway. Suite 312 Commission Architect/Engineer Questionnaire: Lubbock. TX. 784013479 Sw747-5238 ,Question A 2.12: Tltere~ are maximum ceilings for prof&eional eerrrices fees this agency can pay. 4SOQN. Tenth, Suite B -What' ~would you consider to be x fair aad McAllen. TX. 75501.1555 :~easc&ile-~.fee' providing complete architectural 512m52-4517 _ -: L, iiii&':-~:ei@necriig services (programing through knrtn&ti~~~ ,ol+ervition to .include one-year 200 MaIn P&a, Sulb 400 -~I~ ~;~ollortip,~ipap&ction) .,~ for this project? San Antonlo. TX. 782052797 512/225.4101 Wlth.~our.eecood:quCCtian~ yo@~sk:~ ,., .: ~,.'~ I - .'.iIf ~,~tk ...M&,r to [the first .questionl is An Equal Opportunity/ Afflmuttw ActIon Employer .affirmative. vbat-meam are appropriate for making aucb.informetion avail&la for consideration In , I ' sele&tion of in architect,or engineer? * :: We ctinclude.:,,~~first. 'r&t: 'art&r ‘S64-4, V.T.C.S. (Professional .Services'Prbcurement Act). [hereinafter "the Act!']. does g prohibit the inclusion of i question decligned to lliclt,lnformation regarding fair land 'reasonable fees or cost estimates. Because we answer your p. 682 Mr. Ron Jackson - Page 2 (JM-155) first question in the negative, we need not answer your second question. Article 664-4, V.T.C.S.. provides the following: Section 1. This Act shall ‘be known end may be cited as the “Professional Services Procurement Act.” Sec. 2. For purposes of this Act the term “professional services” shall mean those within the scope of the practice of accounting, architecture, optometry, medicine or professional engineering as defined by the laws of the State of Texas or those performed by any licensed architect, optometrist, physician. surgeon, certified public accountant or professional engineer in connection with his professional employment or practice. Sec. 3. No state agency, political sub- division, county, municipality; district, authority or publicly-owned uiility of the State of Texas shall make any contract for, or engage the professional services of, aoe licensed physician, optometrist, eurgeon. architect, certified public accountant or registered engineer, or any group or association thereof, selected ou the basis of competitive bids submitted for such contract or for such services to be performed, but shall select and award such contracts and engage such cervices on the basis of damonstrated competence and qualifications for the type of professional services to be performed and . _‘Sec. 4,: Anyand all s,vFh cmtracts, agreements or ‘~arrangamente for professional t3ervices negotiated, ,made or entered into, jirectlp or indlrecUy. by any’ agency or department’ of the State .of Texas;‘: county, municipality, political subdivision. district, authority or publicly-owned -utility in any way in violation of the provisions of this Act or any part thereof are hereby Mr. Ron Jackson - Page 3 (Jh-155) declared to be void as contrary to the public po:icy of this State and shall not be given effect or enforced by any Court of this State or by any of its public officers or employees. (Emphasis added). We are required to interpret a statute in a way which expresses only the will of the makers of the law, not forced nor strained. but simply such as the words of the law in their plain sense fairly sanction and will clearly sustain. Railroad Cdssion of Texas v. Miller. 434 S.W.2d 670. 672 (Tex. 1968). quoting Texas Highway Comiesion v. El Paso Building and Construction Trades Council, 234 S.W.2d 857 (Tex. 1950). The clear ‘terms of the Act itself do not merely permit the consideration by the agency of the fees charged for certain professional services, but require it. While the Act expressly prohibits the awarding of contracts for certain professional services on the basis~ of competitive bids, it clearly requires an agency to award such contracts “on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications for the type of professional services to be performed and at fair and reasonable prices.” V.T.C.S. art. 664-4. 53 (emphasis added). Section 3 goes on to require that such professional fees be “consistent with and not higher than the published recommended practices and fees of the various applicable professional associations and do not exceed the maximumprovided by any state law.” Therefore, the Imposition of fees must be one factor considered by any agency in awarding a contract for such professional services; however. it cannot be the & factor to be considered. Section 8 of Acts 1971, 62nd Legislature. chapter 30, page 73,:the emergency provision of the Act, contains the following language, detailing the public policy considerations prompting the passage of the Act: The fact that the selection of certified public accountants. architects. nhvsicians. ontometrists. surgeons and professionai engineers on the basis of the lowest bid places a premium on lncompekence and is the moat likely procedure for selecting the least able or qualified and the most incompetent practitioner for the performance of services vitallv affectinn the health. welfare and safety of th; public &d that, in spite bf repeated expressions of the legislature excepting such professional services from statutes providing for competitive bidding procedures. some public officers continue to apply competitive bidding p. 604 Mr. Ron Jackson -'Page 4 (JM-155) procedures to the selection of such professional personnel, creates an emergency of the gregtest public importance to the health, safety and welfare of the people of Texas . . . . (Emphasis added). Accordingly, we answer your first question in the negative. As a result, we need not answer your second question, SUMMARY Article 664-4. V.T.C.S., (the Professional Services Procurement Act). does not prohibit the inclusion on a questionnaire submitted to engineers or architects being considered for employment of any question designed to elicit information regarding professional fees which such engineers or architects would find appropriate for the project being considered. J-h Very truly you . - J 1M MATTOX Attorney General of Texas TOM GREEN First Assistant Attorney General DAVID R. RICBARDS Executive Assistant Attorney General Prepared by Jim Moellinger Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION CGMHITTEE . Rick Cilpin, Chairman Jon Bible David Brooks Colin Carl Susan Garrison Jim Moellinger Nancy Sutton Bruce Youngblood p. 685