Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1123 (2026)

Unlicensed contractors; contract bidding; license denial; exemptions; warning

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

32-1123. Unlicensed contractors; contract bidding; license denial; exemptions; warning

A. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, if an entity that is not licensed or not properly licensed pursuant to this chapter bids on a contract for a project with an aggregate worth of more than $1,000, the registrar may not issue the entity a license for one year after the bid date.  For the purposes of this subsection, aggregate worth does not include any electrical fixture or appliance that meets all of the following:

1. Was designed by the manufacturer.

2. Is unaltered, unchanged or unmodified by any person.

3. Can be plugged into a common electrical outlet.

4. Does not involve the connection to a supply of natural gas, propane or other petroleum or gaseous fuel.

B. This section does not apply to an entity that bids on a contract for either of the following:

1. A department of transportation project.

2. A project that is subject to the federal acquisition regulation, title 48 Code of Federal Regulations, including the department of defense federal acquisition regulation.

C. This section does not affect the licensing exemptions prescribed in section 32-1121.

D. The registrar shall issue an entity a written warning relating to unlicensed activity if the registrar has not previously issued the entity a warning and if the entity bids on a contract for a project pursuant to subsection A of this section and the project has an aggregate worth of more than $1,000 but less than $20,000, excluding any electrical fixture or appliance that meets all of the following:

1. Was designed by the manufacturer.

2. Is unaltered, unchanged or unmodified by any person.

3. Can be plugged into a common electrical outlet.

4. Does not involve the connection to a supply of natural gas, propane or other petroleum or gaseous fuel.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2006–2006 · leading case: Arizona Com. Diving Servs., Inc. v. Applied Diving Servs., Inc., 129 P.3d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
Arizona Com. Diving Servs., Inc. v. Applied Diving Servs., Inc., 129 P.3d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “ADS counterclaimed asserting that A.R.S. § 32-1123 mandates a one-year suspension of ACDS’s license and requested that the trial court require such a suspension.”
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.