A. In awarding the contract for work to be paid for from public funds, bids of contractors, who are licensed under title 32, chapter 1 or chapter 10, who have satisfactorily performed prior public contracts, and who have paid real or personal property taxes assessed under title 42 for at least two consecutive years in an amount of at least two hundred dollars per year immediately prior to submitting a bid on a plant and equipment such as may be used in the performance of the contract for which the bid is submitted, or on other real or personal property in the state equivalent in value to such plant or equipment, shall be deemed a better bid than the bid of a competing contractor who has not paid such taxes, whenever the bid of the competing contractor is less than five per cent lower, and the contractor making a bid, as provided by this section, which is deemed the better bid, shall be awarded the contract. The location of the home office of the contractor is not a factor in a determination of preference pursuant to this section.
B. No contract awarded for public work shall be sublet to a subcontractor who has not paid taxes as required by this section.
C. For purposes of this section:
1. "Satisfactorily performed prior public contracts" means that the contractor has completed a public works contract with any agent or with the United States or any of its instrumentalities.
2. "Two consecutive years immediately prior to submitting a bid" means the two tax years immediately preceding submitting the bid. One of the years may be the year in which the bid is submitted. If the second year is the year in which the bid is submitted, the tax payments must be for a complete tax year. Prorated tax payments do not qualify as payment for a complete tax year. Installment tax payments do not qualify as payment for a complete tax year until all installments are paid.
Notes of Decisions
Big D Constr. Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 789 P.2d 1061 (Ariz. 1990).
· cites it 34× “(Weitz), asking,this court to consider the constitutionality of Arizona’s bid preference statute, A.R.S. § 34-241. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz.”
Tanner Companies v. Superior Court, 696 P.2d 693 (Ariz. 1985).
· cites it 42× “Each bidder claimed the five percent resident contractor taxpayer preference pursuant to A.R.S. § 34-241(A). [1] Tanner then filed a bid protest with the City alleging, inter alia, that Rein and Dahl had not paid taxes during the preceding two years sufficient to qualify for the…”
W. Sun Contractors Co. v. Superior Court, 766 P.2d 96 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 32× “provide evidence that they qualify as a preferred contractor according to A.R.S. 34-241. We have scheduled a meeting for Tuesday, July 26, 1988, .”
Mardian Constr. Co. v. Superior Court, 557 P.2d 526 (Ariz. 1976).
· cites it 12× “00 lower than that submitted by Sundt, the latter filed a protest with the City of Phoenix urging that it was entitled to a five percent preference under A.R.S. § 34-241 (B) and that Mardian was not.”
City of Phoenix v. Wittman Contracting Co., 509 P.2d 1038 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 18× “Wittman then filed a special action in the Maricopa County Superior Court, requesting the court to find that the City’s actions were contrary to the provisions of A.R.S. § 34-241, and thus arbitrary and capricious, and to grant relief enjoining the City from awarding the…”
City of Scottsdale v. Deem, 556 P.2d 328 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 5× “Deem filed suit in the Maricopa County Superior Court, alleging that on the authority of the Arizona taxpayers preference statute, ARS § 34-241 (B), he was unjustifiably denied the award of the construction contract and therefore was entitled to a judgment for lost profits.”
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Grand River Dam Auth., 720 P.2d 713 (Okla. 1986).
· cites it 2× “The trial court denied the injunction, and Francis appealed. Like Oklahoma, Arizona provides various temporary remedies to prevent performance of acts which detrimentally affect the ability to seek redress on appeal.”
Achen-Gardner, Inc. v. Superior Court, 839 P.2d 1093 (Ariz. 1992).
· cites it 4× “We believe, however, that the court of appeals correctly concluded that the term "structure" includes the road construction involved in the off-site improvements.”
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court, Cty. of Maricopa, 514 P.2d 454 (Ariz. 1973).
· cites it 6× “Various grounds were offered by Sundt for invalidating the Zurn bid, but we need only consider those relied on by the superi- or court for its decision, namely, that Sundt was the lowest responsible bidder because A.R.S. § 34-241 allows a 5% preference in this case to Sundt, and…”
Cyr & Evans Contracting Co. v. Graham, 407 P.2d 385 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965).
· cites it 12× “It is admitted in the pleadings that the petitioner would be qualified under the provisions of A.R.S. § 34-241, referred to above, for a five per cent preference and that the intervenor, Pete Horner Excavating, Inc.”
D. C. Speer Constr. Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 603 P.2d 100 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 10× “§ [34J-241B in the award of highway contracts? A.R.S. § 34-241 reads: A. When calling for bids for contracts for public work to be performed on behalf of the state or any political subdivision thereof, which will be paid for from public funds, no bid shall be considered for…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 34-241(A) — 2 cases
Tanner Companies v. Superior Court, 696 P.2d 693 (Ariz. 1985).
“Each bidder claimed the five percent resident contractor taxpayer preference pursuant to A.R.S. § 34-241(A). [1] Tanner then filed a bid protest with the City alleging, inter alia, that Rein and Dahl had not paid taxes during the preceding two years sufficient to qualify for the…”
W. Sun Contractors Co. v. Superior Court, 766 P.2d 96 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“provide evidence that they qualify as a preferred contractor according to A.R.S. 34-241. We have scheduled a meeting for Tuesday, July 26, 1988, .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 34-241(B) — 3 cases
D. C. Speer Constr. Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Transp., 603 P.2d 100 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).
“§ [34J-241B in the award of highway contracts? A.R.S. § 34-241 reads: A. When calling for bids for contracts for public work to be performed on behalf of the state or any political subdivision thereof, which will be paid for from public funds, no bid shall be considered for…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 34-241(C) — 3 cases
W. Sun Contractors Co. v. Superior Court, 766 P.2d 96 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“provide evidence that they qualify as a preferred contractor according to A.R.S. 34-241. We have scheduled a meeting for Tuesday, July 26, 1988, .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 34-241(C)(2) — 1 case
W. Sun Contractors Co. v. Superior Court, 766 P.2d 96 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“provide evidence that they qualify as a preferred contractor according to A.R.S. 34-241. We have scheduled a meeting for Tuesday, July 26, 1988, .”
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.