Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF-~HEAI-I-ORNEY GENERAL• FT~AES AUSTIN """"Z . . .iionorsblc D, C. Gror ixate High-uayzn~inecr !i%ias Higzh-:lay Depnrtnent Austin, '&%a~ Dear SirI . authorizedt0 reject the in 3her:mn Couuty. requested the Coa- a e - .- -.- ,::. .: 59 Honorable D. C. Greer, ?a&e 2 -' per cubic yard for Class '*Anconcrete instead of.l?# per cubic yard, his bid would have been ap?roximtely $2,000.00 hi~gherthan th8 next lc+ieatbid." .~ The reminder of your letter is devoted to references to statutes and itea of the standard Specifiostionspublished by the XighvzayComission. Ke agpreoiate your cooperation and assistancein'gointingout to us'the authority which you considerpertin.ent.tothe.wc?stion.at baud. The 'firstsentence of Article 60741, Vernon's Aunotated Civil Statutes of Texas, states that "The State High;tayDepartment shall~have the right to reject any sod all such bids : .,.n It thus appears that the Legislature has delegatedto 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.coveringthe constructionoi'the projeot involved has,not yet been rende. It is therefore u~~~csssarytb con- -siderthis point further. In accordanceWith the above quot- ed provisionof 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 technicalitiesas e consideredfor the best interest of the xt! ,.=' . The folloning provision is'tcken fros Iten 2.10 of Itea.2, under the hesding Tnstructions to Didders" OS the Standard Specifications: I **.* * Drcposals'inwhich the prices are obviously.unbalanoedoay,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 $0 unreasonablea$ to imediately op?car ridiculous. It is obvious that no contractorT,vould submit intentlonnlly or seriously uny such bid; The faotthat :A-.?arnhill's bid on Clans “hs coocrcte is patently erroneous distinguishes the fact situationwhich you have presented to us fro3tPcse c332s iuvolvihgiatentionslunierbids or si~glc errors of calculntio:i. . ,. -.~, _ . fionorable D. C. Greer, Page 3 ~8,above stated it appear8 that the Highway Coti- alsslon is authorizedby law to.*eject any bid which it does aat see fit to consider. The highv;ayComission itself has xcco&zed the a!ithority thus conferred upon it and has in- cluded in its Standard Bpeclficationsa provision directly fu line with the atatutes. Se btilievethat under this au- t1lorit.y alone tiie’iii&imay Cosnission is authorizedto reject the bid iu qUestiOn. It doe8 not appear upon the inforxatlonfurnished us that any other ‘classesinclu,dedin .Xr.Saruhillls bid are out of line or unbalanced. Taking his bid on Class “A* concretealone, it unquestionablyis 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~~Lssionis authorized to reject the bid of .J’. 3;.Earnhill atidto return to him his .proposalg3arauty and award the contract to the next lowest bidder. Youre Very truLy ix : r?f APPROVEDOCT 19, 194G