Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 177
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 177.086 (2026)

Construction of facilities, sealed bids and public advertisement required, when

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  177.086.  Construction of facilities, sealed bids and public advertisement required, when. — 1.  Any school district authorizing the construction of facilities which may exceed an expenditure of fifty thousand dollars shall publicly advertise, once a week for two consecutive weeks, in a newspaper of general circulation, qualified pursuant to chapter 493, located within the city in which the school district is located, or if there be no such newspaper, in a qualified newspaper of general circulation in the county, or if there be no such newspaper, in a qualified newspaper of general circulation in an adjoining county, and may advertise in business, trade, or minority newspapers, for bids on said construction.

  2.  No bids shall be entertained by the school district which are not made in accordance with the specifications furnished by the district and all contracts shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder complying with the terms of the letting, provided that the district shall have the right to reject any and all bids.

  3.  All bids must be submitted sealed and in writing, to be opened publicly at time and place of the district's choosing.

­­--------

(L. 1965 p. 307 §§ 1, 2, 3, A.L. 1996 S.B. 605, A.L. 2003 S.B. 686, A.L. 2019 H.B. 604)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1976–2016 · leading case: Byrne & Jones Enter., Inc. d/b/a Byrne & Jones Constr. v. Monroe City R-1 Sch. Dist., 493 S.W.3d 847 (Mo. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Byrne & Jones Enter., Inc. d/b/a Byrne & Jones Constr. v. Monroe City R-1 Sch. Dist., 493 S.W.3d 847 (Mo. 2016). · cites it 20× “The trial court determined that a low bidder has no standing under section 177.086, the school district’s competitive bidding procedures, to challenge the award of a contract to another bidder because the statute is clearly intended to safeguard the interest of the public, not…”
Hadel v. Bd. of Educ. of Sch. Dist. of Springfield, 990 S.W.2d 107 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 66× “The key question in this appeal arises from the interpretation to be given to Section 177.086, RSMo 1994, as later amended by Section 177.”
State ex rel. Page v. Reorganized Sch. Dist. R-VI of Christian Cnty., 765 S.W.2d 317 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 12× “The thrust of much of that evidence was to establish the appellant low bidder (Killian Construction Company hereafter called Killian) was a “responsible bidder” within the meaning of § 177.086. It is conceded Killian is so qualified.”
La Mar Constr. Co. v. Holt Cnty., R-II Sch. Dist., 542 S.W.2d 568 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 6× “It advertised for bids pursuant to Section 177.086 RSMo 1969. The “Notice to Bidders” complied with the statute and specified as follows: “The owner reserves the right to reject any or all bids and to waive any or all formalities”.”
Hanten v. Sch. Dist. of Riverview Gardens, 13 F. Supp. 2d 971 (E.D. Mo. 1998). · cites it 6× “§ 1983 ("§ 1983"), Missouri's Open-Bidding Statute, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 177.086, and Missouri's Sunshine Law, Mo.”
Killian Constr. Co. v. Jack D. Ball & Assocs., 865 S.W.2d 889 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). “or its agents conspired to obtain the bid of the school district, inter alia, by Ball asking for an earlier completion date on behalf of the School District, and Crawford proposing an earlier completion date without complying with the bidding requirements of § 177.086 or…”
Hanten v. Sch. Dist. of Riverview Gardens, 183 F.3d 799 (8th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “§ 1983 , Missouri’s “Open-Bidding” statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 177.086 (West 1999) and Missouri’s “Sunshine” law, Mo.”
Byrne & Jones Enter., Inc. d/b/a Byrne & Jones Constr. v. Monroe City R-1 Sch. Dist. (Mo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 16× “086, the relevant bidding statute here that sets forth the requirements for a school district’s advertising and awarding of contracts for the construction of facilities, states in pertinent part: No bids shall be entertained by the school district which are not made in…”
State ex rel. Kraemer v. New Haven Sch. Dist., 813 S.W.2d 45 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “The trial court determined that defendants had complied with the procedure set out in Section 177.086, RSMo 1986, had rejected all bids, and hired their own employees to construct the project.”
Dicarlo Constr. Co. v. Junior Coll. Dist. of Metro. Kansas City, 813 S.W.2d 312 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 3× “The petition alleged that the contract was not advertised for bids and was let without the solicitation and receipt of sealed bids as required by § 177.086, RSMo 1986. The court refused to issue a temporary restraining order and the case proceeded to.”
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.