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 

. 

authorized t0 reject the 

in 3her:mn Couuty. 

requested the Coa- 
a 

e - 

.- -.- 

,::. 

.: 59 

Honorable D. 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 references to 

statutes and itea of the standard Specifiostions published 

by the Xighvzay Comission. Ke agpreoiate your cooperation 

and assistance in'gointing out to us'the authority which you 

consider pertin.ent.to the. wc?stion.at baud. 

The 'first sentence of Article 60741, Vernon's 

Aunotated Civil 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 delegated to tha~Highway'Consfssion the right on its own 

motion to'reject any 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 therefore u~~~csssary tb con- 

-sider this point further. In accordance With the above quoted provision of krtiole 66741, we find the following provision 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 considered for the best interest of the 

,. . 

The folloning provision is'tcken fros Iten 2.10 

of Itea.2, under the hesdin g Tnstructions to Didders" OS 

the Standard Specifications: I 

**. * * Drcposals'in which the prices are 

obviously.unbalanoed oay,be rejected *. + *:n 

The informtion which you have subzitted to us indicates 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 $0 unreasonable a$ to imediately op?car ridiculous. 

It is obvious that no contractor T,vould submit intentlonnlly 

or seriously uny such bid; The faotthat :A-. ?arnhill's 

bid on Clans “hs coocrcte is patently erroneous distinguishes 

the fact situation which you have presented to us fro3tPcse 

c332s iuvolvihg iatentionsl unierbids 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 Standard Bpeclfications a provision directly 

fu line with the atatutes. Se btilieve that under this aut1lorit.y alone tiie’iii&imay Cosnission is authorized to reject 

the bid iu qUestiOn. 

It doe8 not appear upon the inforxatlon furnished 

us that any other ‘classes inclu,ded in .Xr. Saruhillls bid 

are out of line or unbalanced. Taking his bid on Class “A* 

concrete alone, it unquestionably is 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~~Lssion is authorized to 

reject the bid of .J’. 3;. Earnhill atid to return to him his 

.proposal g3arauty and award the contract to the next lowest 

bidder. 

Youre Very truLy 

ix : r?f 

APPROVEDOCT 19, 194G