Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1949 )

^ . OlRNEY ENEKAL OIFTE~AS October 29, 1949 Hon. Ball Ii. Logan, Chairman opinion No. v-941 State Board of Control Aus tin, Texas Re: Authority of the Board of Control to handli~ utility contracts for eleemosynary inatitu; tiona, In* titiltions of higher learnlhg atid State departments. ~Dear Mr. Logan: you have requested an opinion concerning the au- thority of the Board of Control to handle utility contracts. for the elebmosynary institutions not under its supervision, ’ the Institutions of higher learning and the State departments. In answering, we assume your question is whether the services available from public utilities must be pur- chased by the Board of Control. We further assume that you referonly to power, light, telephone, gas, water, sewer,~ and similar services provided by connection with a community 8ystem and which may be obtained from only one source. Considering first the eleemosynary instltutlons and the higher educational institutions It is our opinion that the statutes do not require that such utility services be purchased by the Board of Control. The purchasing power of th6 Board of Control is governed by Chapter 3, Title 20, V.C.S., which creates the ‘~ Board’s purchasing division. When taken together, the stat- utes of this chapter point to the one idea: the urchaae lies b comcetitive biddin Provis iTihor~ %~o+%le purchase +* 0 supplies In this manner. In- cluded are provisions for a mailing list, letting of the contracts after advertising, sealed bids and their requl-, sltea, rejection of certain bids by the Board, equal bids, separate bids, opening of bids and the requirement of a ~~ bond to accompany bids. Construing those statutes of Chap- ter 3 together, the purchasing power of the Board of Con- trol Is limited to only those items which are the proper subject of competitive bidding. . (v-941) ,. ;.,. -~' ,, : >,, I:,, A public utility is usually a monopoly 0psratUg under a frrinchise with the type of rervlce defined and rater controlled. These factors make purchasr of public Utility aervlces on the basis of competitive bids inpracticable. The courts have recognized these conditions and have’held AUP. 1921) e Public utility services are not “6upplles” with- 1~ the scope of th&statutes and therefore the Board~of Control would not be required to make such purchases. , We have not, in the absence of a specific queu- tlon, considered the inclusion within a public utlllty con- ;y” of items other than the primary rervlce to be iurnlsh-’ Generally speaking, such a contract should cover nothing ax&noms: to the furnishing of service. You have further inquired as to the Board of Cm- Arol’s authority to handle utllity,contracts for the State departments. The Board is designated as. custodian of pub- lic buildlngs~bg Article 665, V.C.S. Therefore, utility service used in connection vith the maintenance of build- ings In the custody of the Board should be procured by tlm Board. SUMMARY The Board of Control is not required to let ,mblic utility contracts for the eleemosynary institutions not under Its suparvlsio;t;;iEo8e of’ instltutlons of higher learning. sCrvice used in connection with the tilntenance ~;of buildings in the custody of the Board of .’ . . : Hen, Hall B. Logan, page 3 (v-941) Control should be procured by the Board. Yours very truly, ATTORHEY CRUiERAL OF THXAS By -i&m~+t.=&&& 'L. ~hoaas E. Taulbee Assistant TET:rt:gw APPROVEI) FIRST ASSISTABT ATTORREYGFiXiBRAL