(dissenting, with whom Braucher, J., joins). I believe that the court’s decision extends public regulation of subbidding practices for public buildings beyond the range intended by the Legislature, increases the cost of public buildings, and unreasonably burdens awarding authorities.
*763The problem in this case is that an apparent unfairness to the plaintiff in the conduct of the general contractor and the selected subbidder has inspired a judicial extension of the public bidding law beyond its plain limits. Neither the language of the statute nor its legislative history shows any intention to regulate relationships between general contractors and subbidders with respect to nonfiled categories of work. All parties agree that a general contractor may contract with others to do work covered by its general bid. They further agree that a general contractor may make such, contracts with persons who have been selected, or might be selected, by the general contractor as subbidders on work requiring a filed subbid. Most importantly, while our bidding statutes have required the selection of the lowest responsible general bidder, they have not required the selection or use of the lowest responsible subbidder. See East Side Constr. Co. Inc. v. Adams, 329 Mass. 347, 353-355 (1952); Rudolph v. City Manager of Cambridge, 341 Mass. 31, 39 (1960).
A general contractor is free to select a subbider who is not the lowest, at the risk of elevating its own bid and losing the general contract. The statute focuses on the lowest over-all general bid, and if it is made lower by an arrangement between the general contractor and a subbider such as exists here, that legislative purpose is encouraged. Although reduction in the over-all price to the awarding authority does not justify a violation of a bidding regulation (Chick’s Constr. Co. Inc. v. Wachusett Regional High Sch. Dist. Sch. Comm. 343 Mass. 38, 42 [1961]), the achievement of a lower cost to the awarding authority, and hence to the taxpayers, is a legislative purpose which properly may be considered in construing the object of the statute.
The courts opinion treats the arrangement between Westcott and Limbach as a variance from the terms of the filed subbid. The filed subbid was not varied in any respect. Even if the separate arrangement concerning *764the outside work were treated as a variance of the filed subbid, § 44H provides that any variance or modification of a filed subbid is to “be of no effect.” The subbid as filed survives; the variance does not. The court’s opinion, however, gives force to the asserted variance and invalidates the subbid. That result is plainly contrary to the language of the statute.
By extending regulation to nonfiled subbids, the court opens for scrutiny all conduct between a general contractor and a subbidder from the time of the filing of subbids until the selection of a subbidder. This decision makes any concession by a subbidder, intended or inadvertent, which benefits a general contractor a ground for invalidation of a filed subbid.
Furthermore, the burden of compliance by awarding authorities with the bidding statutes is increased greatly by the court’s decision. The public interest would be served better by giving greater latitude to awarding authorities, allowing for the possibility that negotiation such as occurred here may save funds for the taxpayers of the Commonwealth. Moreover, an aggrieved subbidder could seek immediate relief directly against anyone whose conduct was unlawful. See, e.g., G. L. c. 93A, §§ 2, 3, and 11.
If the Legislature wishes to proscribe an arrangement such as was made between Limbach and Westcott, in order to enhance the integrity of the subbidding process, it may do so. I find no indication that it has done so under existing legislation. I would affirm the decree.