Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 153
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 153.09 (2026)

New proposals when necessary - change in work or materials

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
September 30, 2025
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 96 - 136th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

If in the opinion of the owner referred to in section 153.01 of the Revised Code, the award of a contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder is not in the best interests of the state, the owner may accept another bid so opened or reject all bids, and advertise for other bids. Such advertisement shall be for such time, in such form, and by such electronic media as the Ohio facilities construction commission directs. All contracts shall provide that such owner may make any change in work or materials on the conditions and in the manner provided in sections 153.10 and 153.11 of the Revised Code.

Last updated July 31, 2025 at 3:52 PM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1984–2016 · leading case: Cleveland Constr., Inc. v. Ohio Dep't of Admin. Servs., 700 N.E.2d 54 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cleveland Constr., Inc. v. Ohio Dep't of Admin. Servs., 700 N.E.2d 54 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 10× “4 of the Instructions to Bidders and R.C. 153.09. “16. The trial court erred in finding that the contract entered into between ODAS and Intervenor-Appellee Danis Building Construction Company is not void, ab initio.”
Johnson v. Linder, 471 N.E.2d 815 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “However, in 4 Anderson’s Ohio Civil Practice 417, 419, Answer and Reply, Section 153.09, it is stated: “* * * [I]n Ohio prior to the Civil Rules, the courts permitted the disposition of actions involving * * * res judicata by summary judgment * * (Footnote omitted.”
Nationside Mtge.., L.L.C. v. Young, 2016 Ohio 8287 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “It wrote that it was engaging in that assumption because in 4 Anderson’s Ohio Civil Practice 417, 419, Answer and Reply, Section 153.09, it is stated: “* * * [I]n Ohio prior to the Civil Rules, the courts permitted the disposition of actions involving * * * res judicata by…”
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.