Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 1745 (2026)

Advertisement for sealed proposals; bonds

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The trustees, commissioners or other persons in charge of any public improvement in an amount in excess of $100,000, which is subject to chapters 141 to 155 shall, after consultation with the Director of the Bureau of General Services, advertise for sealed proposals not less than 2 weeks in such papers as the Governor may direct. The last advertisement must be at least one week before the time named in the advertisement for the closing of such bids. Sealed proposals for any public improvements must be addressed to the trustees, commissioners or such other persons having the construction in charge and remain sealed until opened at the time and place stated in the advertisement or as the Governor may direct.   [PL 2011, c. 691, Pt. B, §12 (AMD).]
If a public improvement has been properly advertised in accordance with this chapter, and no proposals have been received from a qualified person who has been bonded in accordance with the requirements of Title 14, section 871, the Director of the Bureau of General Services is authorized to accept proposals from persons that are not bonded in accordance with the requirements of Title 14, section 871. The Director of the Bureau of General Services is authorized to set reasonable standards to ensure the interest of the State in the consideration of persons mentioned in this paragraph.   [PL 2011, c. 691, Pt. B, §12 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1967, c. 409, §3 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 274, §2 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 771, §83 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 303, §2 (RPR). PL 1985, c. 554, §1 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 483, §A18 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 691, Pt. B, §12 (AMD).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1981–1981 · leading case: Brown v. State, Dep't of Manpower Affairs, 426 A.2d 880 (Me. 1981).
Brown v. State, Dep't of Manpower Affairs, 426 A.2d 880 (Me. 1981). “See 5 M.R.S.A. § 1745. We likewise reject the analogy if it is meant to suggest that by virtue of allegedly having been led to expect a new round of bidding for the contract the plaintiff’s right or privilege to re-bid was somehow greater than that of other rejected bidders and…”
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.