OFFICE OF-~HEAI-I-ORNEY GENERAL• FT~AES AUSTIN """"Z

.

.

.iionorsblc

D, C. Gror ixate High-uay

zn~inecr !i%ias Higzh-:lay Depnrtnent Austin, '&%a~ Dear SirI

.

authorizedt0 reject the

in 3her:mn Couuty.

requested the Coa-a e -

.- -.- ,::. .: 59

HonorableD. C. Greer, ?a&e 2 -'

per cubic yard for Class '*An concrete instead of.l?# per cubic yard, his bid would have been ap?roximtely $2,000.00 hi~gher than th8 next lc+ieat bid." .~ The reminder of your letter is devoted to referencesto statutesand itea of the standard Specifiostions published by the Xighvzay

Comission. Ke agpreoiateyour cooperation and assistancein'gointingout to us'the authoritywhich you considerpertin.ent.to the. wc?stion.at baud. The 'firstsentenceof Article 60741,Vernon's AunotatedCivil Statutes of Texas, states that "The State High;tay

Department 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'rejectany bid which it does not desire to consider. You state in your opinion request that. the award of contract.covering

the construction

oi' the projeot involved has,not yet been rende. It is thereforeu~~~csssarytb con- -sider this point further. In accordance With the above quoted provisionof krtiole 66741, we find the followingprovision 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 technicalities as xt! =' e consideredfor the best interest of the

,. . The folloningprovision is'tcken fros Iten 2.10 of Itea.2, under the hesdin g Tnstructions to Didders"OS the Standard Specifications: I

**. * * Drcposals'inwhich the prices are obviously.unbalanoed oay,be rejected *.

+ *:n The informtion which you have subzitted to us indicatesbeyond 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 $0 unreasonable a$ 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 Cotialsslon is authorized by law to.

*eject any bid which it does aat see fit to consider. The highv;ay Comission itself has xcco&zed the a!ithority thus conferred upon it and has included in its StandardBpeclfications a provisiondirectly fu line with the atatutes. Se btilieve that under this aut1lorit.y

alone tiie’iii&imay

Cosnission is authorizedto reject the bid iu qUestiOn.

It doe8 not appear upon the inforxatlonfurnished us that any other ‘classes inclu,ded

in .Xr. Saruhilllsbid are out of line or unbalanced. Taking his bid on Class “A* concretealone, it unquestionably is unbalanced.

in so far as its ratio to the usual and custotirybids on the sama aaterial is.

coticarred.:‘;e.

beliove that a d.stake so obvious ~111 coze under .thequoted provisionof Itex 2.10~of Itex 2 of the Standard GpecIfications.

For the reasons stated above, it is the opinion of thf8 departsentthat the Highway Com~~Lssion is authorizedto reject the bid of .J’. 3;. Earnhill atid

to return to him his .proposal

g3arautyand award the contractto the next lowest bidder.

Youre Very truLy

ix : r?f
APPROVEDOCT19, 194G