December 22, 1949 

Hon. Raymond E. Wagee opinion ao. v-981. 

county Attorney 

Galveston County 

Galveston, Texas 

Re: 

Dear air: 

The authority of the 

CommlssIoIlers' court 

to revlse'bullding 

speclfIoatIons and 

add $1999.57 to.the 

contract nrlce vltbout raadv&tising 

competitive bids. -. _. 

Your request for an oplnloa Is In part as 

lovs: 

"The CommlssIoners Court entered into 

a contract vlth R. P. F'rank vbloh vas avarded after complying vith the statute on a bid 

of $5813.16, and thereafter the City Bulldlng Inspector refused to issue a permit for 

the oonetructlon of the building which vas 

to be a public rest room at East Beach Playground outside the Seavall of the City of 

Galveston, Texas. on ootober 14tl+ 1949, 

the Commissioners Court, because addltlonal ohanges had~to be made ~$0 comply with 

the building oode of the~~clty 'of'Galveston, 

passed a resolution (e copy of vhtch Is:ea-~ 

olosed) authorizing the auccessful,bldd&r, 

R. P. Frank to make the changes for a dlfference of $1999.57 aud excluded a tile 

floor vhlch vas In the original plans. The 

CommIssIoners Court did not advertise.for 

nev bids because they felt that under Article 2368a, Seotlon 2 of the Revised Civil 

Statutes of Texas the amount vas under 

$2000.00 and that additional bids vere not 

necessary. 

for 

foln . . . 

"'Does the Court have authority to let 

Mr. prank complete the contraot vlth tile 

changes made In the resolution vLthout 

L 
Hon. Raymond E. Magee, page 2 (v-981) 

'

resdvertlsing for additional bids?'" 

We am unable to find among the documents 

vhlch you present for our conslderatlon any information 

from which we might determine in what particular the 

building contract Is violative of the building code of 

the City of Galveston. It follows that neither are ve 

able to determine exactly what changes were made in 

the contract In question, other than the exclusion of s 

tile flaor from the original plans. The submitted facts 

do reveal, however, that changes were made In the specifications which, as advertised, were the basis of ths 

bids upon which the contract was awarded. 

The rules as to vh& there must be a new sdvertisement for bids when changes are made in the speclfloations submitted as the basis for bids In the first 

Instance are well stated In 43 Amerloan Jurisprudence 

789, Public Works and Contracts, Section 46, as follows: 

,I . . . After bids have been made upon 

the basis of plans and specIfIoatIons prepared by public authorities and given out to all 

Interested bidders, no material or substantial 

change In any of the terms of such plans and 

specifications will be allowed without a new 

advertisement giving all bidders opportunity 

to bid under the new plans and specifications. 

. . . 

"Cases are legion In which contracts have 

been condemned by reason of the departure from 

,the notice or specifications In some particular 

which was substantially favorable to the bldder. Among particular departures from the advertised plans .and specIfIcatIons that have been 

regarded as material may be mentioned an extension of the time within which the proposed work 

is to be oompleted, In oases wheretime Is of 

the essenoe of the oontract,,a stipulation for 

the use of paving materials different from that 

designated In the advertised plans and speclfioatlons, or setting a different price for a 

portion of the work. And the courts will not 

permit this rule to be circumvented Indirectly 

by permitting public authorities after entering 

Into a legal contract pursuant to the advertised 

plans and speolflcatlons, later to make a new 

contract or supplemental contract with the successful bidder embodying changes In those plans 
’ . 

Hon. Raymond E. Ma&e; pige 3 (V-981) 

and speclfloations. . . ." 

See also Iowa-R~braakza LI 

city of Cournl 

the annotatzon, 

Yoa state that the ohanges neoessary to comply vlth the building oode oaused the addition of $1999.- 

57,to a contract originally aaarded on a $5814.16 bid as 

a general rnle, vhether a ohange Is "substantial" Is s 

question of fact. It is onr opinion, hovever, that 

changes amounting to more than one-third of the original 

oontraot prloe must be.oonsldered substantial and materlal. In that oase the situation vhloh you present to us 

comes within the rules state&above, and, notwithstanding the additional amount is less than $2,000, the oounty is required to readvertlae for bids In compliance 

with the provIsIons of Article 2368a, Vernon's Civil 

Statutes. _. 

SUMMARY 

When material and substantial changes, 

amounting to $1999.57 (more than one-thiti 

of the original oontraof prloe), are made by 

the County in the plans and speoFiloatI&s 

for a public building after a oontract for 

the construction of that building has been 

made In oompllance vIth Article 2368a, V.C.S., 

the County must readvertlse for bids, notwithstanding the additional amount is less 

than two thousand ($2,000) Dollars. 

ATTOW GXRXRAL 

JR:EJ:b:mv 

Yours very truly, 

ATTORNEY GENRRAL OF !CRXAS 

Assistant 

X. Jacobson 

Assistant