Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 41-16-50 (2026)

Contracts for Which Competitive Bidding Required.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) With the exception of contracts for public works whose competitive bidding requirements are governed exclusively by Title 39, all expenditure of funds for labor, services, work, or for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies, or other personal property involving thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) or more, and the lease of materials, equipment, supplies, or other personal property where the lessee is or becomes legally and contractually bound under the terms of the lease to pay a total amount of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) or more, made by or on behalf of the Alabama Fire College, the district boards of education of independent school districts, the county commissions, the governing bodies of the municipalities of the state, and the governing boards of instrumentalities of counties and municipalities, including waterworks boards, sewer boards, gas boards, and other like utility boards and commissions, except as otherwise provided in this article, shall be made under contractual agreement entered into by free and open competitive bidding, on sealed bids, to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder.

(b)(1) Prior to advertising for bids for an item of personal property or services, where a county, a municipality, or an instrumentality thereof is the awarding authority, the awarding authority may establish a local preference zone consisting of any of the following:

a. The legal boundaries or jurisdiction of the awarding authority.

b. The boundaries of the county in which the awarding authority is located.

c. The boundaries of the Core Based Statistical Area in which the awarding authority is located.

(2) If no action is taken by the awarding authority under subdivision (1), the boundaries of the local preference zone shall be deemed to be the same as the legal boundaries or jurisdiction of the awarding authority.

(3) If a bid is received for an item of personal property or services to be purchased or contracted for from a person, firm, or corporation deemed to be a responsible bidder, having a place of business within the local preference zone where the county, a municipality, or an instrumentality thereof is the awarding authority, and the bid is no more than five percent greater than the bid of the lowest responsible bidder, the awarding authority may award the contract to the resident responsible bidder.

(4) If no bids or only one bid is received at the time stated in the advertisement for bids, the awarding authority may advertise for and seek other competitive bids, or the awarding authority may negotiate through the receipt of informal bids not subject to the requirements of this article. Where only one responsible and responsive bid has been received, any negotiation for the work shall be for a price lower than that bid.

(5) If both or all bids exceed the awarding authority’s anticipated budget, the awarding authority may negotiate with the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, provided the negotiated price is lower than the bid price.

(c)(1) The governing bodies of two or more contracting agencies, as enumerated in subsection (a), the governing bodies of two or more counties, or the governing bodies of two or more city or county boards of education, may provide, by joint agreement, for the purchase of labor, services, or work, or for the purchase or lease of materials, equipment, supplies, or other personal property for use by their respective agencies. The agreement shall be entered into by similar ordinances, in the case of municipalities, or resolutions, in the case of other contracting agencies, adopted by each of the participating governing bodies, which shall set forth the categories of labor, services, or work, or for the purchase or lease of materials, equipment, supplies, or other personal property to be purchased, the manner of advertising for bids and the awarding of contracts, the method of payment by each participating contracting agency, and other matters deemed necessary to carry out the purposes of the agreement. Each contracting agency’s share of expenditures for purchases under any agreement shall be appropriated and paid in the manner set forth in the agreement and in the same manner as for other expenses of the contracting agency. The contracting agencies entering into a joint agreement, as permitted by this section, may designate a joint purchasing or bidding agent, and the agent shall comply with this article. Purchases, contracts, or agreements made pursuant to a joint purchasing or bidding agreement shall be subject to all terms and conditions of this article.

(2) In the event that utility services are no longer exempt from competitive bidding under this article, non-adjoining counties may not purchase utility services by joint agreement under authority granted by this subsection.

(d) The awarding authority may require bidders to furnish a bid bond for a particular bid solicitation if the bonding requirement applies to all bidders, is included in the written bid specifications, and if bonding is available for the services, equipment, or materials.

(e) Notwithstanding subsection (a), in the event the lowest bid for an item of personal property or services to be purchased or contracted for is received from a foreign entity, where the county, a municipality, or an instrumentality thereof is the awarding authority, the awarding authority may award the contract to a responsible bidder whose bid is no more than 10 percent greater than the foreign entity if the bidder has a place of business within the local preference zone or is a responsible bidder from a business within the state that is a woman-owned enterprise, an enterprise of small business, as defined in Section 25-10-3, a minority-owned business enterprise, a veteran-owned business enterprise, or a disadvantaged-owned business enterprise. For the purposes of this subsection, “foreign entity” means a business entity that does not have a place of business within the state.

(f)(1) No expenditure involving thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) or more may be split into parts involving sums of less than thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for the purpose of evading the requirements of this article.

(2) If an awarding authority documents its reasonable belief, based on expenditures in previous years, that an expenditure will not meet the dollar threshold and, based upon that reasonable belief, makes the expenditure without bidding, but then circumstances arise that necessitate making a subsequent expenditure of like items or services that would increase the total to or above the dollar threshold, then the subsequent expenditure shall be bid pursuant to this article. The awarding authority shall not be deemed to have violated this article for the prior expenditure that was not bid, provided that the awarding authority documented its reasonable belief, based on expenditures in previous years, that the total amount would be below the dollar threshold and that the subsequent expenditure was bid.

(g) Beginning October 1, 2027, and every three years thereafter, all dollar amounts used in this article shall be subject to a cost adjustment based on the following procedure: The Chief Examiner of the Department of Examiners of Public Accounts may submit to the Chair of the Legislative Council a recommendation that the amount be increased based on the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the immediately preceding three-year period, rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. The recommendation shall be subject to the approval of the Legislative Council. In the event the recommendation is not disapproved by the Legislative Council by the end of April following the submission of the recommendation, the recommendation shall be deemed to be approved. Upon approval, the Department of Examiners of Public Accounts shall notify the public of the adjusted dollar amounts by July 1 before the fiscal year in which the changes will take effect.

(Acts 1967, Ex. Sess., No. 217, p. 259, §1; Acts 1975, No. 1136, p. 2234, §1; Acts 1979, No. 79-452, p. 732; Acts 1979, No. 79-662, p. 1160; Acts 1980, No. 80-429, p. 598; Acts 1981, No. 81-434, p. 679, §1; Acts 1985, No. 85-281, p. 180, §1; Acts 1989, No. 89-687, p. 1351, §3; Acts 1994, No. 94-207, p. 270, §1; Acts 1995, No. 95-630, p. 1334, §1; Acts 1997, No. 97-225, p. 348, §1; Act 2000-153, p. 216, §1; Act 2006-621, p. 1702, §1; Act 2008-379, p. 703, §1; Act 2009-760, p. 2294, §2; Act 2015-293, p. 913, §1; Act 2018-231, §1; Act 2021-296, §4; Act 2023-135, §1.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Arrington v. Associated Gen. Contractors of Am., 403 So. 2d 893 (Ala. 1981).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Arrington v. Associated Gen. Contractors of Am., 403 So. 2d 893 (Ala. 1981). · cites it 8× “); and the Alabama Competitive Bid Law, Code 1975, § 41-16-50 (Supp.1980). Defendants put at issue each count of plaintiff's complaint, and after a hearing on the merits, the trial court, with findings of fact and conclusions of law, found for plaintiffs and permanently enjoined…”

MADALONI v. City of Mobile, 37 So. 3d 739 (Ala. 2009). · cites it 10× “, as to why the competitive-bid provisions set out at Ala. Code 1975, §§ 41-16-50, 11-99A-12, and 39-2-2, should trump the "exclusive procedure" for the creation and maintenance of BIDs set out in Act No.”

Consol. Pipe & Supply Co. v. City of Bessemer, 69 So. 3d 182 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). · cites it 10× “One of the two arguably pertinent statutes cited by the City is Ala.Code 1975, § 41-16-50. Under that statute, “all expenditure of funds of whatever nature for .”

Tft, Inc. v. Warning Sys., Inc., 751 So. 2d 1238 (Ala. 1999). · cites it 2× “Alabama's Competitive Bid Law, specifically Ala.Code 1975, § 41-16-50, does not require that the award of a public contract go to the lowest bidder, but to the "lowest responsible bidder.”

Urban Sanitation Corp. v. City of Pell City, Ala., 662 F. Supp. 1041 (N.D. Ala. 1986). · cites it 3× “1981), the Supreme Court of Alabama *1045 stated: “[w]e believe cases construing § 41-16-20 are instructive in the instant case [involving § 41-16-50].” That court, in apparent dicta, does also state that “§ 41-16-20, like § 41-16-50, requires that the contract be awarded to the…”

Maint., Inc. v. HOUSTON CTY. ALA., 438 So. 2d 741 (Ala. 1983). · cites it 4× “The issues presented on appeal are 1) whether the 1980 contract between the County and Maintenance was subject to the competitive bid requirement of Code 1975, § 41-16-50(a)(1); 2) whether the 1980 contract constituted a renewal of the 1976 contract between the County and…”

Ericsson GE Mobile Commc'ns, Inc. v. Motorola Commc'ns & Elec., Inc., 120 F.3d 216 (11th Cir. 1997). “” Ala.Code § 41-16-50(a). It further states that “[a]ny taxpayer of the area within the jurisdiction of the awarding authority and any bona fide unsuccessful bidder on a particular contract shall be empowered to bring a civil action in the appropriate court to enjoin execution…”

Fitch v. State, 851 So. 2d 103 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “20 "I instruct you that the Alabama Competitive Bid Law provides that: `In the event only one bidder responds to the invitation to bid, the awarding authority may reject the bid and negotiate the purchase or contract, providing the negotiated price is lower than the bid price.”

Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Hill Rom, Inc., 545 So. 2d 1324 (Ala. 1989). · cites it 3× “In its complaint, HSI alleged that, because Hill Rom was not the lowest bidder for the sale and installation of the patient headwall systems, the Hospital’s awarding the contract to Hill Rom violated Alabama’s Competitive Bid Law (Alabama Code 1975, § 41-16-50 et seq.), and that…”

Shuford v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 978 F. Supp. 1008 (M.D. Ala. 1997). · cites it 2× “The report also found violations of the following 16 state and federal laws and regulations: (1) 1975 Code of Alabama § 41-1-6 (failure to make regular inventory of nonconsumable property); (2) 1975 Code of Alabama § 41-16-50 (failure to obtain competitive bidding for…”

Moody Emergency Med. Serv., Inc. v. City of Millbrook, 967 F. Supp. 488 (M.D. Ala. 1997). · cites it 2× “State Law Claims Plaintiff also alleges that Millbrook’s method and procedure for referring emergency 911 calls from Medicaid recipients violates the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, Article I, § 22 and Amendment No.”

Anderson v. Fayette Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 738 So. 2d 854 (Ala. 1999). “*862 Although I disagree with the majority's rationale, I concur in the result because the legislature has provided the public with only one remedy to prevent a public agency from violating the provisions of the Competitive Bid Law. "A taxpayer or a `bona fide unsuccessful…”

Show all 22 citing cases →

— Ala. Code § 41-16-50(a) — 6 cases

Arrington v. Associated Gen. Contractors of Am., 403 So. 2d 893 (Ala. 1981). “); and the Alabama Competitive Bid Law, Code 1975, § 41-16-50 (Supp.1980). Defendants put at issue each count of plaintiff's complaint, and after a hearing on the merits, the trial court, with findings of fact and conclusions of law, found for plaintiffs and permanently enjoined…”

Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Hill Rom, Inc., 545 So. 2d 1324 (Ala. 1989). “In its complaint, HSI alleged that, because Hill Rom was not the lowest bidder for the sale and installation of the patient headwall systems, the Hospital’s awarding the contract to Hill Rom violated Alabama’s Competitive Bid Law (Alabama Code 1975, § 41-16-50 et seq.), and that…”

Advance Tank & Constr. Co. v. Arab Water Works, 910 F.2d 761 (11th Cir. 1990).

Gen. Elec. Co. v. City of Mobile, 585 So. 2d 1311 (Ala. 1991).

— Ala. Code § 41-16-50(a)(1) — 1 case

Maint., Inc. v. HOUSTON CTY. ALA., 438 So. 2d 741 (Ala. 1983). “The issues presented on appeal are 1) whether the 1980 contract between the County and Maintenance was subject to the competitive bid requirement of Code 1975, § 41-16-50(a)(1); 2) whether the 1980 contract constituted a renewal of the 1976 contract between the County and…”

— Ala. Code § 41-16-50(a)(l) — 1 case

Urban Sanitation Corp. v. City of Pell City, Ala., 662 F. Supp. 1041 (N.D. Ala. 1986). “1981), the Supreme Court of Alabama *1045 stated: “[w]e believe cases construing § 41-16-20 are instructive in the instant case [involving § 41-16-50].” That court, in apparent dicta, does also state that “§ 41-16-20, like § 41-16-50, requires that the contract be awarded to the…”

— Ala. Code § 41-16-50(c) — 1 case

Steeley v. Nolen, 578 So. 2d 1278 (Ala. 1991).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.