O.C.G.A. § 32-4-63 (2019)
Limitations on power to contract; at least two estimates required for certain expenditures
(a) A county is prohibited from negotiating a contract except a contract:
(1) Involving the expenditure of less than $200,000.00;
(2) With a state agency or county or municipality with which a county is authorized to contract in accordance with the provisions of Code Sections 32-4-61 and 32-4-62;
(3) For the purchase of those materials, supplies, and equipment necessary for the county’s construction and maintenance of its public roads and for the support and maintenance of the county’s forces used in such work, as authorized by Chapter 91 of Title 36;
(4) Subject to Article 6 of Chapter 6 of this title, with a railroad or railway company or a publicly or privately owned utility concerning relocation of its line, tracks, or facilities where the same are not then located in a public road and such relocation or grade-crossing elimination is necessary as an incident to the construction of a new public road or to the reconstruction or maintenance of an existing public road. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall be construed as requiring a county to furnish a site or right of way for railroad or railway lines or tracks of public utility facilities required to be removed from a public road;
(5) For engineering or other kinds of professional or specialized services;
(6) For emergency maintenance requiring immediate repairs to a public road, including but not limited to bridge repairs, snow and ice removal, and repairs due to flood conditions; or
(7) Otherwise expressly authorized by law.
(b) No contract involving an expenditure of more than $20,000.00 but less than $200,000.00 shall be awarded under this Code section without the submission of at least two estimates.
History
Code 1933, § 95A-819, enacted by Ga. L. 1973, p. 947, § 1; Ga. L. 1989, p. 356, § 2; Ga. L. 2000, p. 498, § 9; Ga. L. 2014, p. 851, § 3/HB 774.
Annotations
Law reviews. - For annual survey of local government law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 351 (2004).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Specialized services. - Summary judgment pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56 was properly granted in the county’s action to recover money had and received by the contractor, since the contractor asserted that the contract, which was for road striping and which was not opened for public bidding, was for a specialized service under O.C.G.A. § 32-4-63(5), an exception to the public bidding requirements under O.C.G.A. § 32-4-64; however, O.C.G.A. § 32-1-3(6) expressly defined road striping as a form of road construction and not as a special service. Howard v. Brantley County, 260 Ga. App. 330, 579 S.E.2d 758 (2003). No power to enter contract. - County was properly granted summary
judgment pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56 in the county’s action to recover money received by the contractor for applying stripes to the county’s roads, where the county commissioner awarded the contract without public bidding, the contract was oral, and the contract was for over $190,000; a belated objection under O.C.G.A. § 36-10-1 did not prevent the county from recovering the funds because the contract was beyond the county’s authority to enter as O.C.G.A. § 32-4-63(1) barred counties from negotiating contracts in excess of $20,000, and the contract was not exempt from competitive bidding under § 32-4-63(5). Howard v. Brantley County, 260 Ga. App. 330, 579 S.E.2d 758 (2003).
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Contract for personal services as within requirement of submission of
bids as condition of public contract, 15 A.L.R.3d 733.