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 

dump truok .to fill the need of Precinct 

Number -0. Advertltieatent uti made on : :‘;. 

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. &Mm rOe8lWa urd weme Opted. 

The compan~er w. the bi@~ ant3 the 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 members present 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 IQUIPmtw(0ne 1952 madi 2 Ton Tmror chaerir atid 

pab-oto.) 

*Not106 t ildderr having been duly 

publ1rh.Q 14x1 t L Camllco Bprlngr ~Javelin, 

the tollowing bidr uwe rooelwd and 

opened in open, CommUrlon~8 ’ Court : 

Al Vivfan CheWOXUt Comp8ay.. 1.. . 22245.00 

Amle&inrWeydell ‘Motorrr, im.. . . . ,t2 . 470.06 

“A gotion wa8 made b$ CoinnlsnlOner H. 

Ii. l$errln&on that Anderson-Weydell Motors, 

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

oplnlon OP the court that the Ford -ok la 

the mont euit,abla, Por the type OP work to 

” b6’&onF. .N@Sp uaa ~qeconded by .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~ 

COunty oP 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-285 

6L 

1947) and 

Section 2 0r Article 23 provides in 

. 

. *. 

“NO county, aotlng thro’&h Its CouMsaloners Court, and no. city In this State 

$~;pereaSter make any 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 much county 

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 Abe rac@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 

State in actor ?i 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 Worde and 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 au3f take 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. Andrew P. &neon, &ye 5 ‘(V-1565) 

to be purchased as ootiplalnanta argue. This 

the commlssloners may well ~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 then matter, 

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 !i d 

price, 

lead slro 

to ttie concluelon that In advertlring r0r 

bide the make of 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 LB r0ut-d ineWeatgv. 

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 requlred 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.. ‘.