Hon. Andrew P. Johnson Opinion No. V-1565 County Attorney Diamllt county Re’: Authority of the CommisCarrlzo Sprlnge, Texas elonerrr’ Court to accept the higher of, two bids on the purchaee of a dump Dear Sir: g;gocosting more. than

Your request for an opinion ppesenta the Sollowing Saots’:

“At the regular meeting OS the Commle- ’ elonere’ Court of the County of Dimmlt held on October 13, 1952, the’court lnattiucted the County Judge to n&e the proper advertlsement for bi@J Sor the purchase.oS a dumptruok .to fill the need of Precinct Number-0. Advertltieatent uti madeon : :‘;. October 16th 8nd October 23t!d, .1952, eet-
. tag out the epeoi~i~ationr the truck must met .and stabsng that the blda wquld be opened on NOvsraber~ 10, 1952.
“The ConwsieBioner8 ’ CO& met in It8 regular meeting for the month OS November on NovhQer 10, 1952. FUO bias on the dump trek had. &MmrOe8lWa urd wemeOpted. The compan~er w. the bi@~ ant3the amount ot each bid are’ afa .fdllors:.
‘Al Vivian Chevrol& Company, Cerrlzo Sqrings, Texas, bid &?,245.00. *

.“Anderson-Ueyaell Motors, Inc., Carrizo

Sprlnge, Texata, bid #2,4?0.00.
“Both bide meet the~epeciflcatione requircd, and both PidfJerg’are rerponalble. “ tie PollcW.n& W., oP the CMU8elonere I Court

. w8b enter*d ,on November 10, .1952:

.

.

.

_.i Hon. Andrew P. JOhIMOn, page 

### 2 (i-1565)

. “On.thia the 10th d&y of November, 1952 ‘the Commlaslonersl Court met in regular emrlbn with all memberspresent aa -foXlom: ’ ” . Terre11 8. Kellogg, County Judge~,,preeldlng Roy C. Jones, Cokmuisrloner Precinct No. 1 IT. H. Hemlngton, Comlssloner Preclnat No. 2 ‘, C. Wi Barker; Comlrrloner Preolnct No. J. L. Hester Conmlarloner Ereclnot No. Andreu P. Jofmon; County Attorney 3
‘L? D. White, County Treanurer !‘The Pollowing bualrmm...raq attended to-wit a
“k BIAS OplDcBD

IW -INCT .P IQUIP

### mtw(0ne 1952 madi 

### 2 Ton Tmror chaerir atid pab-oto.) *Not106 t 

### ildderr having been duly publ1rh.Q 14x1

L t Camllco Bprlngr ~Javelin, the tollowing bidr uwe rooelwd and opened in open, CommUrlon~8 ’ Court : Al Vivfan CheWOXUtComp8ay.. 1.. . 22245.00 Amle&inrWeydell ‘Motorrr, im.. . . . ,t2 . 470.06 “A gotion wa8 madeb$ CoinnlsnlOner H. Ii. l$errln&on that Anderson-Weydell Motors,

. .Inop+po9ation bid. be abiepted, %t being the 

### oplnlon OPthe court that the Ford -ok la the mont euit,abla, Por the type OP

### workto ” b6 ’&onF. .N@Sp uaa ~qecondedby .ComuUs&lone~.
,, ‘,,,1,~ & .,I;,.B8.8tqr and aer+ed .pnanl~ua~yi k’&s bdmg. no fuNlie bwfnege, Court war, ad$8numfl”
BUed on the above .mntlonbd taotr,‘you aak: %. Under the fact8 oP this ease, 18~ COuntyoP DlfWt required by law to let oontract to thi LoWea% MdfiWP?
.

..

.Hon. Andrew P. Johnec+, .page 3 (V-1565)

: ì2 l ,Under wimt

can a county reject of a higher bid? "3. Under &at dan a county reject oArcumtances, IS any, the lowest bid In favor ciroumstancee, If any, all bids?
“4. In the event all bids are rejected, does a ,county have the authority to again advertise for bids and make new speclflca- ‘: tlons?”

The purchase outlined in your request la governed by the provisions of Artlole’2368a;Vernon~s Civil Statutes.. .v--$~ Q9jw l Att ‘y Oen. Ope. v-2856L1947) and

Section 2 0r Article 23 provides in
.

. *. “NO county, aotlng thro ’&h Its CouMsaloners Court, and no. city In this State $~;pereaSter makeany oontrac~t calling of Two out of county lng or or arip or any ~equlrlng the e%iendlture or $aMnt Thousand ($2,000.00) Dollars or eiore any fund or funds ‘of ‘any city or or subdlvlslon of .tiy county crest-‘. Imposing an obllg&t$on or llablllty . nature or character upon muchcounty subdivision of such countiy, or upon

. such city, without first submltt~ such proposed coqtract. to competitive bids. Ndtice-of the time and place when and where budh contracts shall be let shall be publlshed lq such county (Ii concerning a county contract or,contraots for such subdlvlslon of such county) and in such city, %k for two concernin 7 a city contract), once a

2) consecutive weeks prior to the tine set for letting such contract, the

. da68 of t

fourteen 6:+i*rt..~~lScat.lo~II,.to .bbe ,_... at ,&e.ast 14) days~prlor to the date ‘eet for letting said oontraot; and said cozitract 8hall be let to the lowest reeponelble 61dTier. The court. and/or governing, body shall have the right to reject any d llbd and ‘if the aontraot la ‘POP th~oo&&%n ‘. of publlo. worka, then the ruooea6fuL bid.- der, ehall Aberac@lred to give a good and. sufflclent bond “in. the Pull amount of the

. :

. . . .

. . .

. .. .,

. .

.

.’ . Hon. ~&x&r P. Johnson, **p&i+ 4**  **(V-1565)**

. . contract prloe, for the faithful perrormance

oi euoh conOlract, executed~by some INrety company author eed to do buslneed in this

?i State in actor anoe with the provisions of Article 5160, Revised Statutes of 1925 and amendment6

thereto,“. (Xmphwls added.j Article 2368s requires that the oontract be let “to the lowest responsible bidder”. The phrase “lo)le,st responsible bidder” has a well tleilned mean%ng. #or a collection of cases see 25 Wordeand Phrase&I $Perm. Ed. 1940) 714. In determining the lowest reaponslble bidder the commleeionersr court Is not PerformInS a mere mlnlaterlal duty but is exerclglng a duty whioh la deliberative and dleoretionary. Att'y Qen. Op. V1536 (1952). The oommlreloneri I Bourt au3ftake into oomularatlon the quality or .the prodiaot,~ the adapt-’ :.ri ablllty ,to the particular uee .requlrad; and the ability, oapaclty,‘exgerienoe, erSlalenay and integrity of the

,

‘she SuprCnne

Court 0r Alabama, in OonEilderlng ur rfqueet,

“That the not&es of pucohaad war ported :ii ..,~a publiehed therequwed length 0r tim(r and by registered mail torwarded to three. dialerr in euch material, ae provided ‘by the asiended Bat, appear6 not to be oontrovexted. And that the.aubrtanoe ot the n&lob lkkerriu reetr the aot*r requlrementr we t&ink 3 laltr, olear. It oallea for realed 

### bid8 on two on6 an&one-half ton truoka, short wheel bkm, tihul# with cab, wlfh d&l PS& Wheel@, e ui ped rlth.3Oa$-8 ply tlrea on rear 8nd 680-% balloon tlree on front.’ Clearly, no provlalon or the act **UWMnded**that the notice nune the ,+Nfaat;ure.P, oi $he, truck desired

. ..

‘.

r: . . Hon. AndrewP. &neon, &ye 5 ‘(V-1565)

to be purchased as ootiplalnanta argue. This the commlssloners maywell ~determlne after receiving bl4e on varloua.m%kes of trucks. In the Instant case, the road eupervlsor by his affidavit dlrcloaee he favored the Chrevolet over the Ford, and gives his reasons as eoonomy 

### In opelration and f&r&G:.:. blllty of service. The oommiealonera evldantly deferred ~to hle judgment In thenmatter, and purchased. the Chevrolet trucks at a coat of $179.50 n&We

than the bid of the Ford dealer, one of thelre complainants, after first eliminating from consideration the bide of the Dodge and other dealers In trucks.
“Complainant Walden-t&or Company wae the Ford dealer offering the loweat bid, and it la insisted the statute was violated for the renaon that Ita bid,was not accepted and the ChWrolet bought for a hi her To dcoept thla oantentlon wou d !i price, lead slro to ttie concluelon that In advertlring r0r bide the makeof mUluraCture mWit be given and the purohese oonflned thereto, 8 theory whloh-we have repudiated ae not withinany requirementa of the act. In deter-in@ who Is the loWe8t reePonelble bidder, the

thorltlB6.may take into conslderathe quality of the rMterl810 a$ well the ftp:::;;i%: 342 PartlOuUr. uae Ion LBr0ut-dineWeatgv. A t CYy’o? Oakland, ~30.Cal. App. .556, 159 ‘P. gO2, where **uao** involved the purohale **of** a locking devlbe for the jail; the oourt holding that: ‘The honest exerciee of dlacretlon of a city council, In considering the adaptability to use requlred of gooda offered, in determining who la the lot?e@t ,responfilble .bidder **under** a charter cilllng fol’ award’of public **works:**contract to such bidder, la not reviewable. I .%o far .a8 here~appeara, there W&B atich honeat exeroise Qf discretion in the .instant care. There 1s ,no charge of bad falth. county authorities merely D refe&red. the % nuye of truox .over the 

### otner, and werg

. *: , .

. ‘.‘. .

.. *.

t. . / Hon. Andrew P. Johneon, Dye 6 (V&1565)


### d-1

The racte **p&kntbd** in oo\s lnqulry reveal that the Comlsrloner~! ~Court detemlned that the Anderson-Weydell Notore. Inc. WBB the lciweet renmmlble bldder,elnce, a8 you state, its truok.wU better adapted to the particular use intended by the Court. This waq trFtgyt‘;eUi to the sound d.iroretlon.or the Commiaslor-i-

, Therefore, you ere advlsep that the C.ommlealonera’ Court had the authority to award the contra& under consideration to the Anderson-Weydell Motors, Ino. In the absence of fraud,or a&abuse of d10oret1on. In view Of our enswer’to your first question it is unnecessary to anmter your remaining questione. ,ag!?g&z : *

In auarbtng a oontmct to thb “1oweot r@m:bLs biMbr” nib~~ 0r miozb a3 aunt to the.prov%- 6r Vernon’r Civil Statute*, th? Com%r&nu’rl Court may .. cormlder the quality OS the prodtict and ltr ad8pt8billtg to the prrtioulalr use re**qulred 8e**  well 41) the ebllito, capaiilty, : and rinancl8l re~ponmiillty of the bldder. Wltchsll v. Walben Wotbr, 735 Ala. 34, 177 ‘So. 15rmm .

. 

## rmovm J.“O. ‘B8vlr, Jr. county Ar?aare Dlau?a Yourb very truly,
‘hxct MXIXL Attorney General Mary K. ml.1 ,RgvU*lmlc.dMa&ant., : .,., .,..;. Charles 0. Mathewe ‘Fir& Asciatant
‘JR?- :’ .::.,: .~ 

# . ,.

-...

I.. ‘.