Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1991 )


Menu:
  •                               @ffice of tfie 9lttornep @eneral
    Mate      of Gexas
    DAN MORALES
    .ATTcmXEI
    CEs‘ER.*L
    February 22,199l
    Honorable Marcus D. Taylor                      Opinion No. DM-4
    Criminal District Attorney
    Wood County                                     Re: Whether a county may make a purchase
    P. 0. Box 689                                   in excess of $10,000 without competitive bids
    Quitman, Texas 75783                            if, after advertising, no bids are received
    (RQ-2187)
    Dear Mr. Taylor:
    You have requested our opinion on questions relating to the following set of facts:
    On August 22 and August 29, 1990, Wood County commissioners
    advertised for bids for a dump truck for the Precinct 4 Road and Bridge
    Department. The specifications (which were identical to specifications
    previously used, where bids were obtained and trucks purchased) were
    mailed to ten potential bidders, as well as publicly advertised as
    required by law. On September 10, 1990, the date of the bid opening,
    no bids were received.
    You state that the cost of the truck will exceed $10,000, -thereby bringing the
    purchase within the County Purchasing Act, sections 262.022 through 262.035 of the Local
    Government Code. You also stipulate that none of the exceptions to competitive bidding
    provided in the act apply to the purchase of the dump truck.
    You ask whether the county in these circumstances may negotiate directly with a
    vendor for the purchase of the dump truck or whether it must readvertise for bids. If it
    must readvertise, you also ask how many times it is required to do so. We conclude that
    the county must readvertise for contract bids in accordance with the terms of the County
    Purchasing Act. We further advise that the County Purchasing Act imposes no limit on the
    number of times that a county may be required to advertise for bids on a single contract.
    p,    16
    Honorable       Marcus D. Taylor - Page 2              (DM-4 )
    The County Purchasing Act provides the following in pertinent part:
    Before a county may purchase one or more items under a contract that
    will require an expenditure exceeding $10,000, the commissioners court
    of the county must comply with the competitive bidding or competitive
    proposal procedures prescribed by this subchapter.         All bids or
    proposals must be sealed.1
    Local Gov’t Code $ 262.023(a). Competitive bids or proposals are required only for
    contracts paid from current funds, with bond funds, or through the issuance of time
    warrants. 
    Id. § 262.023(b).
    The County Purchasing Act prescribes specific procedures governing the notice of
    competitive bidding for a particular contract, the opening of bids, and the awarding ~of
    contracts pursuant to competitive bidding. &.e ti $3 262.025; 262.026; 262.027; 262.0275.
    Notice of a proposed purchase of $10,000 or more must either be published in a newspaper
    of general circulation in the county or, if there is no such publication in the county, posted
    in the courthouse in the manner specified in the act. Ih, § 262.025(a). The notice must
    contain certain information, including specifications describing the item to be purchased
    (or a statement informing bidders where specifications may be obtained), the time and
    place for receiving and opening bids, the name and position of the person to whom bids
    must be sent, the method of payment, and the type of bond required of the bidder. && $
    262.025(b).
    Following the opening of bids, the commissioners court is required to
    (1) award the contract to the responsible                   bidder who submits the
    lowest and best bid; or
    (2) reject all bids and publish a new notice.
    1.    Competitive   proposal procedures, which authorize          a county to negotiate    with vendors after the
    qening   of proposals submitted        at the coudty’s request, are generally    available    only for insurance and high
    technology procurements.      h    Local G&t       Code. 5 262.030.   The legislature        recently amended    the County
    Purchasing Act to allow a county with a population of mote than 125,OiXl to employ competitive                      proposal
    procedures    if “the county official who makes purchases for the county determines                that it is impractical   to
    prepare detailed specifications for an item to support the award of a purchase contract,” and the commissioners
    court concurs in this determination       by making a similar   finding.    rd. Q 262.0295.     According    to 19&l census
    figures (the most recent available),    Wood County has a population of just under 25,ooO persons.
    p.    17
    Honorable     Marcus D. Taylor - Page 3          (DM-41
    rd. 5 262.027(a). The act makes special provision for the awarding of a contract when two
    responsible bidders submit the lowest and best bid, 
    id. $ 262.027(b),
    (c), but it does not
    provide alternative procedures when, as in this instance, no bids are submitted.’ Compare
    1 T.A.C. 9 113.6(c)(2)(D) (regulation promulgated by State Purchasing & General Services
    Commission     authorizing  negotiations with vendors when advertisement          results in
    submission of no bids).
    Therefore, we believe the county is required in this instance to commence a new
    round of bidding by republishing notice of the purchase in accordance with the terms of the
    act. As noted, the purchasing act itself supplies no alternative procedures in this instance.
    Also, while the statute does not directly address the problem you describe, there is
    evidence to suggest that the legislature intends counties to readvertise for bids on a
    contract when the initial advertisement yields no bids.
    The clearest indicator of this intent is section 262.027(a)(2), quoted above, which
    describes the county’s options when itis determined that all bids are inadequate or
    unresponsive.     In these circumstances, the commissioners court is authorized to reject all
    bids, but it is not free to enter into direct negotiations with vendors for the purchase of an
    item. Instead, it must publish new notice, which in turn triggers the other competitive
    bidding procedures of the act. See also Local Gov’t Code 5 262.024(d) (procedures for the
    purchase of food items otherwise exempted from competitive bidding).
    In addition, the legislature has specified those occasions on which a departure from
    competitive bidding is permitted. See Local Gov’t Code @262.011(a) (in counties of less
    than 20,000 population without a purchasing agent, commissioners court may dispense with
    competitive bidding for contracts exceeding $15,000 when it publicly finds such “to be in the
    public interest”); 262.024 (exceptions to competitive bidding); 262.0295 (alternative
    multistep competitive proposal procedures for counties with population of 125,000 or
    more); 262.030 (competitive proposal procedure for insurance and high technology items).
    It is well established that when the legislature has enacted exceptions to a statute, the
    statute will be held to apply in all cases not expressly excepted. See State v. Richards, 
    301 S.W.2d 597
    (Tex. 1957). To permit the county in this instance to avoid its obligation to
    award contracts on the basis of sealed competitive bids would be to effectively create a new
    exception to the purchasing act. Accordingly, in answer to’your first question we conclude
    that a county must readvertise for bids on a contract subject to competitive bidding under
    2.   For that matter, the County Purchasing Act does not expressly address the submission of identical
    low bids by more than two responsible bidders.
    p.   18
    Honorable    Marcus D. Taylor - Page 4    ( DM-   4 )
    the County Purchasing Act when the initial advertisement          results in the submission of no
    bids for the contract.
    You next ask the number of times the county must readvertise for bids on a contract
    for which no bids are received. Again, the purchasing act neither anticipates nor offers
    alternatives for this contingency, and the county thus has no recourse but to comply with
    the terms of the act.
    Moreover, the statute provides for exceptions to the competitive bidding process in
    certain circumstances. For example, if the dump truck is needed to avert the consequences
    of a genuine public calamity, the county may purchase the truck without resort to
    competitive bidding. Id: § 262.024(a)(l).       The same will hold true if the purchase is
    necessary to preserve the public health or safety of county residents, or if it is required
    because of unforeseen damage to public property. 19,s 262.024(a)(2), (3). Such outcomes
    will, of course, depend on the facts of the case and the exercise of sound discretion by the
    commissioners court. Finally, it should be noted that the county may also purchase items
    of personal property from a political subdivision of this state, a state agency, or an entity of
    the federal government without resort to competitive bidding. &!, 5 262.024(a)(8)(C).
    SUMMARY
    A county must readvertise for bids on a contract subject to the
    County Purchasing Act, Local Government Code sections 262.022
    through 262.035, when the initial advertisement       results in the
    submission of no bids for the contract. The County Purchasing Act
    imposes no limit on the number of times a county may be required to
    advertise for bids in such instances.
    DANE     MORALES
    Attorney General of Texas
    WILL PRYOR
    First Assistant Attorney General
    0.     19
    Honorable   Marcus D. Taylor - Page 5   (DM-   4)
    MARY KELLER
    Executive Assistant Attorney General
    JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY (Ret)
    Special Assistant Attorney General
    RENEA HICKS
    Special Assistant Attorney General
    SUSAN GARRISON
    Acting Chairman, Opinion Committee
    Prepared by Steve Aragon
    Assistant Attorney General
    p.   20
    

Document Info

Docket Number: DM-4

Judges: Dan Morales

Filed Date: 7/2/1991

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017