The Attorney General of Texas
July 28, 1978
JOHN L. HILL
Attorney General
Honorable Joe Resweber Qpiriion No. H-1219
Harris County Attorney
Harris County Courthouse Re: Whether Harris County
Houston, Texas 77002 may restrict the award of print-
ing jobs to union printers.
Dear Mr. Resweber:
You ask whether Harris County may restrict the award of printing jobs
to union printers. Article 1658, V.T.C.S., provides as follows:
Bids shall be asked for all supplies of stationery,
books, blanks, records, and other supplies for the
various officers for which the county is required to
pay, and the purchase made from the lowest bidder,
after filing said bid with the auditor for record.
Article 2359, V.T.C.S., requires the commissioners court to advertise for bids
on stationery and printing. Article 2362, V.T.C.S., establishes four categories
of stationery and printing and provides as follows:
To the lowest bidder on each class shall be awarded
the contract for all work of that class.
Cf. V.T.C.S. art. 1580 (county purchasing agent makes all purchases except
those required to be made on competitive bids).
The purpose of competitive bidding statutes is stated in Sterrett v. Bell,
240 S.W.2d 516, 520 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1951, no writ):
Its purpose is to stimulate competition, prevent
favoritism and secure the best work and materiflls at
the lowest practicable price, for the best interests and
benefit of the taxpayers and property owners. There
can be no competitive bidding in a legal sense where
the terms of the letting of the contract prevent or
P. 4880
Honorable Joe Resweber - Page 2 (H-1219)
restrict competition, favor a contractor or material man, or
increase the cost of the work or of the materials or other
items going into the project.
The Supreme Court quoted this language with approval in Texas Highway
Commission v. Texas Association of Steel Importers, Inc., 372 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.
1963). The court considered a highway department rule restricting bids to those
providing that construction materials would be manufactured in the United States,
its territories and possessions and found it in violation of a competitive bidding
statute, article 6674h, V.T.C.S. It stated that the administrative body must act in
accordance with the legislative decision favoring unrestricted competition. Texas
Highway Commission v. Texas Association of Steel Importers, Inc., e, at 527.
In Attorney General Opinion H-1086 (1977) we applied the reasoning of the
Texas Highway Commission case to a county policy requiring that bidders be
located in the county and found that policy to be an illegal restriction on
competition. We believe the requirement proposed by Harris County would also be
an illegal restriction on competition. See Miller v. City of Des Moines, 122 N.W.
226 (Iowa 1909); State ex rel. United District Heating, Inc. v. State Office Building
Comm., 179 N.E. 138 (Ohio 19311, mand. ranted 181 N.E. 129 (Ohio 1932). Compare
Pallas v. Johnson, 68 P.Zd 559 (Cola.
* 1937 .
SUMMARY
Harris County may not restrict the award of printing jobs to
union printers, .-since this requirement violates statutes
providing for competitive bidding on printing contracts.
C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman
Opinion Committee
jsn
P. 4881
. .
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion