Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 153
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 153.12 (2026)

Awarding and executing contract

✓ 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
 

(A) With respect to award of any contract for the construction, reconstruction, improvement, enlargement, alteration, repair, painting, or decoration of a public improvement made by the state, or any county, township, municipal corporation, school district, or other political subdivision, or any public board, commission, authority, instrumentality, or special purpose district of or in the state or a political subdivision or that is authorized by state law, the award, and execution of the contract, shall be made within sixty days after the date on which the bids are opened. The failure to award and execute the contract within sixty days invalidates the entire bid proceedings and all bids submitted, unless the time for awarding and executing the contract is extended by mutual consent of the owner or its representatives and the bidder whose bid the owner accepts and with respect to whom the owner subsequently awards and executes a contract. The public owners referred to in this section shall include, in the plans and specifications for the project for which bids are solicited, the estimate of cost. The bid for which the award is to be made shall be opened at the time and place named in the advertisement for bids, unless extended by the owner or its representative or unless, within seventy-two hours prior to the published time for the opening of bids, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, any modification of the plans or specifications and estimates of cost for the project for which bids are solicited is issued and mailed or otherwise furnished to persons who have obtained plans or specifications for the project, for which the time for opening of bids shall be extended one week, with no further advertising of bids required. The contractor, upon request, is entitled to a notice to proceed with the work by the owner or its representative upon execution of the contract. No contract to which this section applies shall be entered into if the price of the contract, or, if the project involves multiple contracts where the total price of all contracts for the project, is in excess of ten per cent, in the case of a contract made by the state or a public board, commission, authority, or instrumentality of the state, or twenty per cent, in the case of a contract made by a county, township, municipal corporation, school district, special purpose district, or other political subdivision or a public board, commission, authority, or instrumentality of the political subdivision, above the entire estimate thereof, nor shall the entire cost of the construction, reconstruction, repair, painting, decorating, improvement, alteration, addition, or installation, including changes and estimates of expenses for architects or engineers, exceed in the aggregate the amount authorized by law.

The unit or lump sum price stated in the contract shall be used in determining the amount to be paid and shall constitute full and final compensation for all the work.

Partial payment to the contractor for work performed under the lump sum price shall be based on a schedule prepared by the contractor and approved by the architect or engineer who shall apportion the lump sum price to the major components entering into or forming a part of the work under the lump sum price.

Partial payments to the contractor for labor performed under either a unit or lump sum price contract shall be made at a rate of not less than ninety-six per cent of the estimates prepared by the contractor and approved by the architect or engineer. No subcontract shall be paid at a rate lower than the rate being paid to the contractor by the public authority.

The amounts and time of payments of any public improvements contract made by the state or any county, township, municipal corporation, school district, or other political subdivision, or any public board, commission, authority, instrumentality, or special purpose district of or in the state or a political subdivision or that is authorized by state law, except as provided in section 5525.19 of the Revised Code, shall be governed by this section and sections 153.13 and 153.14 of the Revised Code. If the time for awarding the contract is extended by mutual consent, or if the owner or its representative fails to issue a timely notice to proceed as required by this section, the owner or its representative shall issue a change order authorizing delay costs to the contractor, which does not invalidate the contract. The amount of such a change order to the owner shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the contract for change orders or force accounts or, if no such provision is set forth in the contract, the cost to the owner shall be the contractor's actual costs including wages, labor costs other than wages, wage taxes, materials, equipment costs and rentals, insurance, and subcontracts attributable to the delay, plus a reasonable sum for overhead. In the event of a dispute between the owner and the contractor concerning such change order, procedures shall be commenced under the applicable terms of the contract, or, if the contract contains no provision for resolving the dispute, it shall be resolved pursuant to the procedures for arbitration in Chapter 2711. of the Revised Code, except as provided in division (B) of this section. Nothing in this division shall be construed as a limitation upon the authority of the director of transportation granted in Chapter 5525. of the Revised Code.

(B) If a dispute arises between the state and a contractor concerning the terms of a public improvement contract let by the state or concerning a breach of the contract, and after administrative remedies provided for in such contract and any alternative dispute resolution procedures provided in accordance with guidelines established by the executive director of the Ohio facilities construction commission are exhausted, the contractor may bring an action to the court of claims in accordance with Chapter 2743. of the Revised Code. The state or the contractor may request the chief justice of the supreme court to appoint a referee or panel of referees in accordance with division (C)(3) of section 2743.03 of the Revised Code. As used in this division, "dispute" means a disagreement between the state and the contractor concerning a public improvement contract let by the state.

Last updated July 31, 2025 at 3:54 PM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases, 1980–2017 · leading case: Prime Contractors, Inc. v. City of Girard, 655 N.E.2d 411 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Prime Contractors, Inc. v. City of Girard, 655 N.E.2d 411 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 14× “” In addition to responding to the foregoing assignments, appellee has advanced two cross-assignments: *254 “The trial court erred in applying R.C. 153.12 to the award of a contract for a road resurfacing project by a municipal corporation through the competitive bidding process.”
White Hat Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Ohio Farmers Ins., 856 N.E.2d 991 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 7× “Metro contends that the evidence supports application of the two-part acceptance process detailed in Hughes .”
Hughes-Bechtol, Inc. v. Ohio (In Re Hughes-Bechtol, Inc.), 124 B.R. 1007 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1991). · cites it 6× “COUNT VII: The debtor alleges that at a hearing, provided for pursuant to O.R.C. § 153.12, held by the Deputy Director on December 15, 1988, the debtor presented evidence which demonstrated that due to the negligence of AA in the preparation of the drawings and specifications,…”
Dugan & Meyers Constr. Co. v. Ohio Dep't of Admin. Servs., 864 N.E.2d 68 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 2× “03(C)(3) states: “When any dispute under division (B) of section 153.12 of the Revised Code is brought to the court of claims, upon request of either party to the dispute, the chief justice of the supreme court shall appoint a single referee or a panel of three referees.”
Hughes-Bechtol, Inc. v. State (In Re Hughes-Bechtol, Inc.), 141 B.R. 946 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1992). · cites it 3× “Although administrative remedies have been sought by Hughes as contemplated by Ohio Revised Code § 153.12, and pursuant to these administrative remedies an “Article VIII hearing” was held on December 15, 1988 (Doc.”
Ernst v. Ohio Dep't of Admin. Servs., 590 N.E.2d 812 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 5× “02(A) since R.C. 153.12 expressly refers to R.C. Chapter 2743.”
Ohio Bus Sales, Inc. v. Toledo Bd. of Educ., 610 N.E.2d 1164 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “The board may reject all the bids, or accept any bid for both labor and material for such improvement or repair, which is the lowest in the aggregate.”
Conti Corp. v. Ohio Dep't of Admin. Servs., 629 N.E.2d 1073 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “14 is the approval of the “architect or engineer” referred to in R.C. 153.12. Ernst, 69 Ohio App.3d at 337-338 , 590 N.”
Dies Elec. Co. v. City of Akron, 405 N.E.2d 1026 (Ohio 1980). “13 provides, in applicable part: “***From the date the contract is fifty percent complete, as evidenced by payments in the amount of at least fifty per cent of the contract to the person with whom the owner has contracted, all funds retained pursuant to sections 153.12 and…”
Wood Elec., Inc. v. Ohio Facilities Constr. Comm'n, 2017 Ohio 2743 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “) To support this proposition, the OFCC relies on R.C. 153.12(B) and cases stating that, as a matter of statute, a contractor in a public contract with the State must exhaust contractual remedies before pursuing a suit in the Court of Claims.”
Ohio Contractors Ass'n v. City of Columbus, Ohio, 733 F. Supp. 1156 (S.D. Ohio 1990). · cites it 5× “Defendants argue that the City of Columbus is a chartered home rule municipality exercising the powers of self-government under Ohio’s Home Rule Amendment, Art.”
MacKinnon-parker, Inc. v. Lucas Metro. Hous. Auth., 616 N.E.2d 1204 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “Appellee argues that no contract existed because no formal written contract was executed in this case, as required by the bid documents and by R.C. 153.12. Summary judgment is appropriate if: “the pleading, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits,…”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 153.12(A) — 3 cases
White Hat Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Ohio Farmers Ins., 856 N.E.2d 991 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). “Metro contends that the evidence supports application of the two-part acceptance process detailed in Hughes .”
Hughes-Bechtol, Inc. v. Ohio (In Re Hughes-Bechtol, Inc.), 124 B.R. 1007 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1991). “COUNT VII: The debtor alleges that at a hearing, provided for pursuant to O.R.C. § 153.12, held by the Deputy Director on December 15, 1988, the debtor presented evidence which demonstrated that due to the negligence of AA in the preparation of the drawings and specifications,…”
Colaianni Constr., Inc. v. Indian Creek Local Sch. Dist., 2016 Ohio 8156 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 153.12(B) — 10 cases
Hughes-Bechtol, Inc. v. State (In Re Hughes-Bechtol, Inc.), 141 B.R. 946 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1992). “Although administrative remedies have been sought by Hughes as contemplated by Ohio Revised Code § 153.12, and pursuant to these administrative remedies an “Article VIII hearing” was held on December 15, 1988 (Doc.”
Ernst v. Ohio Dep't of Admin. Servs., 590 N.E.2d 812 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). “02(A) since R.C. 153.12 expressly refers to R.C. Chapter 2743.”
Conti Corp. v. Ohio Dep't of Admin. Servs., 629 N.E.2d 1073 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). “14 is the approval of the “architect or engineer” referred to in R.C. 153.12. Ernst, 69 Ohio App.3d at 337-338 , 590 N.”
Wood Elec., Inc. v. Ohio Facilities Constr. Comm'n, 2017 Ohio 2743 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “) To support this proposition, the OFCC relies on R.C. 153.12(B) and cases stating that, as a matter of statute, a contractor in a public contract with the State must exhaust contractual remedies before pursuing a suit in the Court of Claims.”
Aggressive Mech., Inc. v. Ohio Sch. Facilities Comm., 2012 Ohio 6332 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2012).
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.