#### The State, ex rel. Gillespie, *v.*Board of County Commissioners of Wyandot County.

*County commissioners*— Bridges—Plans *for substructure and superstructure*— Section *B8J¡8 et seq., General Code*— Ac*cepting whole or separate bids*— Plans *by surveyor and bidder*— Adopting *plan and. bid for entire unit*— Rights *of bidder upon substructure only,*

1. Tlie county commissioners are authorized under Section 2343 *et seq.,*General Code, to receive proposals on plans submitted by bidders for the erection of bridge substructures and superstructures, and may adopt plans covering either or both as an entirety. Where the plan adopted embraces both substructure and superstructure, composing an entire monolithic unit, not susceptible of division into *2separate units, a lump sum may be bid for such bridge as an entirety, -which, the commissioners may accept, providing such sum is the lowest proposal under the adopted ■plan and does not exceed the estimates required under Section 2358, General Code.

2. Where a bidder submits a proposal to erect the substructure under a plan furnished by the county surveyor, but the commissioners award a contract for the construction of an entire bridge as a monolithic unit to another bidder under his plan, the first-named bidder has not established a clear legal right to have a contract awarded to him. *(State, ex rel. Ross,*v. *Board of Education,*42 Ohio St., 374, followed.)

(No. 18333

Decided June 17, 1924.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Wyandot county.

This was an action in mandamus instituted by the relator in the Court of Appeals of Wyandot county, Ohio, against the board of county commissioners', wherein an order was sought requiring ■¿he board to award him a contract for performing labor1 and furnishing materials necessary for the ■construction -of- & substructure of a county bridge nis bid of $22,537. The Court of Appeals denied the writ, whereupon relator prosecuted error to this court.

The material facts are not in dispute. Acting under Section 2343 *et seq.,*General Code, the county commissioners determined to erect a county bridge over the Sandusky river, and directed the county surveyor to make and submit plans, drawings and estimates therefor, which was done, and the same were submitted to and approved by the board, according to law. All the necessary legal *3requirements were complied with and the necessary advertisements were duly published, in which the board invited proposals on other plans, at the option of the bidder, in pursuance of Section 2345, General Code. According to the estimate of the county surveyor the total cost of the substructure amounted to $23,930.40, of the superstructure, $21,856.33, and of the approaches, $3,931.30, making the total cost, exclusive of engineering, etc., $49,718.03.

The relator’s bid was for materials and labor for the' construction of the substructure according to the plans and specifications of the county surveyor, and under those plans his bid was the lowest bid submitted for the construction of the substructure.

The Roberts Supply Company, another bidder, in compliance with the advertised invitation, submitted to the board of county commissioners its own plans and specifications for the entire bridge, and its bid upon the same as an entirety was $44,974. In its bid there was no separation of amounts bid respectively upon the substructure and superstructure of the bridge.

The county commissioners awarded the contract for the construction of the entire bridge, both substructure and superstructure, to the Roberts Supply Company upon its bid, and upon plans and specifications prepared by it, rejecting the county surveyor’s plans and specifications and adopting the plans submitted for the entire structure by the Roberts Supply Company. The plans submitted and adopted by the board were for a re-enforced concrete structure throughout, making a concrete bridge consisting of three arches, manifestly diffi*4cult to divide into component parts, substructure and superstructure, and in the nature of a monolithic unit.

*Messrs. Justice, Young & Mouser,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Earl B. Garter,*prosecuting attorney, and *Messrs. Leete & Light,*for defendant in error.

Jones, J.

Section 2343, General Code, deals with the erection of a bridge substructure. This may be contracted for upon plans furnished by an architect or civil engineer, or upon other plans received from bidders. Other sections immediately following relate to the superstructure of bridges, which also may be erected upon plans prepared and approved by the county commissioners, or upon other plans furnished at the option of the bidders. Under these various sections we therefore have a scheme whereby the county . commissioners are authorized to receive and consider proposals on any plan submitted by the bidders for the erection of both substructure and superstructure. And they may adopt either, separately, or both, as an entirety.

The Roberts Supply Company, as one of the bidders for the entire bridge, submitted its bid upon -a plan and for a price which included the bridge in its entirety. This proposal necessarily included a plan for both the substructure and the superstructure, and was in conformity to the provisions of the statute. However, it is insisted that instead of submitting a lump sum bid the Roberts Supply Company should have bid separately upon *5the substructure and the superstructure of the bridge, and counsel for plaintiff in error admit that, if this had been done, and the separate bids were the lowest submitted, such proposals would have been valid.

At the outset it must be admitted that the county commissioners did not approve a plan submitted by the county surveyor, but necessarily must have adopted the plan of the Roberts Supply Company, which accompanied its bid. This is evident from the fact that the contract was awarded to it for the entire bridge. This bridge, under the proposal and plan of the successful bidder, was what is termed a monolithic unit. It consisted of an entire, mass of concrete, which was not susceptible of exact separation into separate units whereby separate bids could be made upon the substructure and the superstructure; but the fact remains that the proposal of the successful bidder was the only proposal received upon the plan accepted by the commissioners, and was the lowest bid under that plan for both substructure and superstructure, and, so long as the accepted bid did not exceed the estimate made, the contract awarded for the entire bridge did not contravene Section 2358, General Code. That section indicates authority for entering into a contract for a bridge in its entirety, provided the price is not in excess of the estimates. In any event, since the county commissioners accepted the plan of the Roberts Supply Company, and not that of its own surveyor, upon which the relator submitted his bid, relator cannot compel the commissioners to award him a contract founded upon a plan which is not shown to have been ap*6proved and accepted by tbe county commissioners. Tbe relator must establish a clear legal right to have the contract awarded to him; he cannot avail himself of the invalidity, if any, of the contract awarded to another. *State, ex rel. Ross,*v. *Board of Education,*42 Ohio St., 374.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

M ar,sttat;Ti, C. J., Robinson, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.

Wanamaker, J., not participating.