No. WW-0646 (1959).

Case DateJune 15, 1959
CourtTexas
Texas Attorney General Opinions 1959. No. WW-0646 (1959). 1June 15, 1959Honorable William J. BurkeExecutive DirectorState Board of ControlAustin, TexasOpinion No. WW-646Re: Questions relating to Engineering Fee for Design of Filter Systems for Swimming Pools in three State Parks for the State Parks Board.Dear Mr. Burke:You have requested an opinion of this office in regard to questions you have predicated upon the following facts: On or about October 1, 1957, the State Parks Board requested the Board of Control to select an architect and/or engineer to design swimming pool filter systems for the Abilene, Bastrop and Lockhart State Parks. Roger L. Erickson, consulting engineer and architect, was selected and a contract entered into whereby he was to prepare plans and specifications for the filter systems. Upon completion of plans and specifications for the filter systems, Mr. Erickson received partial payment for his services at the rate provided for in his contract. Payment was based upon vouchers which showed on their face an estimated cost of $30,200 for the three filter systems. Bids were called for by the Board of Control and were opened and tabulated on August 20, 1958. The low bids received for the filter systems, based on Mr. Erickson's plans and specifications, totaled $70,471.00. The appropriation available to the State Parks Board was $32,194.00, therefore, the bids were rejected by the Board of Control. After the bids were rejected, Mr. Erickson forwarded to the Board of Control, at the request of the Board, his final pencil estimates which totaled $77,035.00 for the three filter systems.2After rejection of the bids, Mr. Erickson received warrants from the Comptroller of Public Accounts for additional engineering fees calculated on the basis of the lowest bona fide bid received. The vouchers upon which these warrants were issued were approved by the State Parks Board, but were not approved by the Board of Control. Mr. Erickson still holds these warrants at this time. The questions you submit are as follows:
"1. In view of the fact that the lowest bona fide bid received would overrun the available funds and, therefore, no award could be made, is an engineering fee based on the lowest bona fide bid received a legal obligation accruing to an engineer and payable on that basis?
"2. In view of the fact that Mr. Erickson now has in his possession warrants issued payable to him that were based upon the lowest bona fide bids received, should Mr. Erickson now return those warrants to the Comptroller for cancellation?"
In considering your first question, we look to the appropriation bill by which the expenditures for filter systems were authorized. In...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT