The Attorney General of Texas 

July 28, 1978 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General 

Honorable Joe Resweber 

Harris County Attorney 

Harris County Courthouse 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Qpiriion No. H-1219 

Re: Whether Harris County 

may restrict the award of printing 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 

. .