O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 32-4-64 (2019)

Required letting of contracts by public bid

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Except as authorized by Code Section 32-4-63, all contracts shall be let by public bid.

History

Code 1933, § 95A-820, enacted by Ga. L. 1973, p. 947, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Ga. L. 1937, p. 912, which was subsequently repealed but was succeeded by provisions in this Code sec-

tion, are included in the annotations for this Code section. Public bidding was required. - 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, after 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). Petition sufficient against motion to dismiss. - Petition alleging that the

county commissioners had entered into contracts with one of the commissioner’s members for the construction of roads in the county without the contracts being in writing and entered on the minutes of the board, and in violation of the contracts between the State Highway Department (now Department of Transportation) and the county, was sufficient as against a general demurrer (now motion to dismiss) to show that the plaintiffs were entitled to some of the substantial relief prayed for. Ferguson v. Randolph County, 211 Ga. 103, 84 S.E.2d 70 (1954) (decided under former Ga. L. 1937, p. 912).

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.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2003–2003 · leading case: Howard v. Brantley Cnty., 579 S.E.2d 758 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Howard v. Brantley Cnty., 579 S.E.2d 758 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Southern Striping contends that a jury question remains as to whether road striping is a specialized service under OCGA § 32-4-63 (5), 3 allowing the instant negotiation for its road striping services to proceed as an exception to the OCGA § 32-4-64 requirement that all county…”

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.