funds ...~..n
., , the.las$-mentioned excep'tlon.woul.~ .be.tiade,;which r&o;yes :I - ou~question~and$&iilts, the.ipec!+flcation .bf::'a brand-name or patented 'article .regardlng~ a county &utomdbiJfi.. .. . ..; I,. .:. ;,,. Und&r.'.the facWof'your'fi'& question cpri&rt&g the $pecification'of,a'~959 CheVroIet St&t&n ;Wagon,.it~%.s the opinion. of.:thl& offlce~ that:.~~he."compeititrCa~bidding"' requirement will 'not h&q& been violatbd; either 'under,'.the. Michigan rule dr the. Wip.oonsln rule withy Its ~!exceptl?n. " Further: credence Is, given' thls~: result In .thzLs oase became .there,.,%s the'.actual preeence-of~~o~petitt;ion.~y.'reaeon 'of, .' .the fact,~ abco+rig to '.jroUb.la& >etteF; that::t@.e& are.:-+4 least four pPoepectlve. bS~ders.~-l,f::not'more;', for;' .St' le.;~,.. not incoticeiiab$i thCit.dea,~eri).of,~hev~olet':prc)du.~ts.ln: .' '. the surrgu$ding area mlght':be~'X@rested in ,aubmi,tting bids, on this' proposal:,, ,, .. ..~~.~ .. ." " 19 McQuil$an, 'Munlcigal Corporation:'.; 3rd Edition, : .' .~ .. . .,....' . -,_. .,. ',
. ,'- ._
Honorable Doug Crouch, page 8 (WW-579)
Section 29.42.1s substantially the same as 3 McQuillan, Municipal Corooratlon, 2d Editlon,Sectionl299 which the Commission of Appeals quoted~in it's opPni&, (supra). However, another phrase is added to the last ,sentence of the first paragraph (the underlined'-portlpn of the.,quota- tion, supra) so asto cause the last.sentence to read,as follows: "Therefore., It is generally.held that " .d if all the competition ls.,permltted:of which the situation allows, a patented artlcle.or proc~ess may be specified, and In the absenbe ' of bad. faith, the motive of a:clty counselnln so doing will not be 1nquire.d into. .. : . We must therefore hasten to add; however, that our conclu- sion presupposes that the Commisslo,nerslCourt acts In good faith, has sufflcient~ justlflcati'on and does not abuse its discretioni in any way,,ln its~sp,eclficatloq~ of the brand or manufacturer of~.the :vehlble,deslre,~.,.. .: ... With irespect to-yoursecond .ques&li'~regarding the terms of the~speclflca~ a'motor,,graderi :the, Vllbi case along with the case, Hayden v.iDafllas Coun~ty, ~1 T-6. 2d 990, holds~ that competitive'bidding Is-present even ., though only one bid is submitted to,the. pro&al., or.~even though there is.only.one. 'C company.whiciils ln~ a position to submlt..a bid to thatproposal.. Therefore, Inline with. the&e cases,#~ ~3.t is our opinion that the speclflcations%hich you have-related to us regarding the motor grader, ,which.have the effectof excluding~all b~idders sxcept one dealer; meet. the require,; ments of competitlve~blldding:. Certainly::lt seems proper that the Commissioners' Court shouldbe.allowed:td do in: directly which they may'do dSrect~ly>~'%.e./to'in effect specify a particularmanufacturer 'or,,brandj.,without, so..,doing by name. _,
'Again, however,. w.e,~ reach~thls co$clusion, pre- suppo.slng that the Commissioners "I Court d1d.nd.t. abuse Its discretion In any manner and.,thatthere was's,ufflcient justl- ficatlon in their ~lncluslon 'in-the speciflcatlons o.f the partlcul~ar attribute of the piece 'of..equlp~ent.whlch causes the result that only 'one dealer 'has~the product to fulfill the specifications.-. ~. ~Honorablc Doug 'Crouch, page'9 (w-579~) :
: It..is~p.ermissibIe .for the Commissioners! " ~' .~.~C.ourtof~?l!arra.nt .Caunty in submittl-ng tb ' . competitive ~bidding;a proposed. con'tract Calling for expenditure :of.$2,000...or more ~' . for. the pur,cha;se~o.f ap~,autbmobiIe.~to : .~ specify -thenmanufac,tu eror brand .ofthe~ :,. '! ParticuIar gqhlpment~.-2 r ~machine~rysought ..
t.9 b-e'-bid: upon "r embody l,n .the~ spec~ifi-~ ", ~ations~~prov.~sion.s rhlch,.'limlt~ Ethel'numb'er 'o~r..prospec~i~~..bidders on! a roa'd ~grf;der tO-'one,;.~where. the ~Commlssioners~. Court has