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