Bisbee daily review., 1909-11-27

The matter of the legality or the advertisement for plans and specifica- tions in detail for the construction of buildings on the Poor Farm near Douglas and the adoption of the plans of N. P. oleson & Co, and the grant ing the contract to them for the con struction of same, being brougnt uP, the Board asked the District Attorney for g written opinion on the same, The District Attorney responded im- uediately, rendering the following opinion:
 Tombstone. Ariz.. November ?, 1909, To the Board of Supervisors. Tombstone, Arizona.
 Gentlemen:
 In the matter of the contract here tofore let to N. P. Olson for construc- ton of building on County Poor Farm, and answering your requent for ad- vice from this office as to the legality of same, have to say:
 Paragraph S56O, Title LV of the Civil Code. Rev. Stat. Arizona, 1901, in reference to public buildings out lines the procedure that must be ob- served by the Board of Supervisors in causing any public building to be erected. In said Paragraph it is pro vided that advertisement shall be made for plans and specifications in detail for said buildings and it shall be stated in said advertisement the amount authorized by law to be ex- pended for the erection of said build ing or structure, and also the pro mium to be awarded to the archi- tect whose plans and specifications for the same may be adopted.
 By Paragraph 3561 it is provided that whenever the plans and spesifi- cations of any architect shall ete adopted, such Board of Supervisors shall, before any premium shall be awarded for the plans and sepcifica- tion,s require the architect to execute and file with the Board of Supervis- ors a good and sufficient bond with two sufficient sureties in the penal sum of $5.000. conditioned that within sixty days from the date of said bond be will, on presentment to him enter into contract contain. ing such provisions and conditions as may be required by such Board of Su- uervisors, and also conditioned that he will give such further bond to SC cure the faithful performance of such contract n the event that such Board of Supervisors should, within sixty days require said architect to enter into such contract to erect such building or structure at the price named in said advertisement to be expended for such purpose.
 Paragraph 3562 provides that all contracts entered into by the Board of Supervisors in violation of the pro. vision of this Act, shall be null and void.
 The advertisement in this case did not state, as required by law, ''the pre-. mium to awarded to the architect whose plans and specifications for the same may be adopted" Therefore, under the plain provisions of the act, the letting of the contract to Mir. olson is void
 The letting of the contract to Mir. OlsDn, there being no competitive bidding, as to the sum for which the building could be erected, is, in my opinion, for that further reason a'nul- lity.
 The purpose of the Statute IS three fold: First, it is sought therein to insure that for the amount of money on hand to be expended. there shall be secured the best possible plans and specifications under the stimulus af forded by competition for the pre- mium awarded; Second, that when such plans and specifications are thus secured, the competitive bidding should follow, and advertisement for bids should be made upon the basis of a building to be constructed in accordance with such plans and speci. fications; Third. that in the event that no lower bid should be secured it will then be optional with the Board to compel the architect furnish ing the successful plans and spec. ifications to construct such building under contract under the penalty of his bond.
 My reason TOT deducing the pur pose recited above under the second and third heads Is, that the law. by the use of the words, 'in the event ' Etalicised above, meant to vest in the Board of Supervisors a discretion | as to whether they should compel such architect to enter into such 8 contract. Such a discretion. if not limited or affected by some good to accrue to the County from its ex | ercise, would be a vain and idle con | ferrfng l of authorityt Inasmuch as it cannot be presumed that the law has for its purpose the securing Of plans and specifications not to be | drawn than that those words refer to 1 condition making it for the benefit of the County that the architect en ter into and execute such contract which necessarily involves. there be | ing an option vested in the Board discretion that the contract should be let to some other pa. t- which properly should be done aft..r Gu aG yertisement
 I am therefore of the opinion thu; as no competitive bidding on these plans and specifications was in fact had, and the letting of tho contract tc Mir Olson is for that further reason ! void. And I so advise you. And | further advise you that tho proceaS irfs from their inception, bt btginning
 with the advertisement. will have tc begin anew and be carried out in con | formity with these views.
 Yours re-,ectfully. "JNO. s. WILLIAMS" District Attorney
 Geo. H. Neale appeared as attorney for N. P. Oleson & Co, and contendet
 that the advertisement upon which
 the contract for the erection of the ] buildings on the Poor Farm. was ie