Court Opinion

ID: 9676511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:25:58.595616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:49.025629
License: Public Domain

Steele Hays, Justice, dissenting. The chancellor held that under the prevailing rule of law professional services are exempt from the competitive bidding procedures of statutes such as Ark. Stat. Ann. § 19-4425 (Repl. 1980) and Ark. Stat. Ann. § 19-716 (Repl. 1980). McQuillan, Municipal Corporations, § 29.35 (3rd Ed. Rev.); 64 Am.Jur.2d, Public Works and Contracts, § 43; 15 ALR3d 733. He also found that archaeological work under the contract would constitute professional services and would thereby be exempt from the bid requirements. Appellant has made no attempt to answer that argument beyond urging that § 19-4425 and § 19-716 are clear and unambiguous. The majority opinion notes that “the city did not waive by ordinance the requirement of competitive bidding for performance of services.” Granted, but I cannot find in the record where the appellant argued that point to the trial court. Thus the case is being reversed on a point not preserved below. Chapin v. Stuckey, 286 Ark. 359, 692 S.W.2d 609 (1985). While the issue is one of first impression in this Court, other jurisdictions have interpreted similar statutory language as not applying to contracts for professional services. Stratton v. Allegheny County, 91 A. 894 (Penn. 1914); Alexander v. Mayor and Board of Aldermen of City of Natchez, 68 So. 2d 434 (Miss. 1953). Jeffersontown v. Cassin, 102 S.W.2d 1001 (Kent. Ap. 1937). I believe the rule is sound and the chancellor should be affirmed.