Wash. Rev. Code » Title 36 · Chapter 36.32
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.32.250 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No contract for public works may be entered into by the county legislative authority or by any elected or appointed officer of the county until after bids have been submitted to the county upon specifications therefor. Such specifications shall be in writing and shall be filed with the clerk of the county legislative authority for public inspection. An advertisement shall be published in the county official newspaper stating the time and place where bids will be opened, the time after which bids will not be received, the character of the work to be done, the materials and equipment to be furnished, and that specifications therefor may be seen at the office of the clerk of the county legislative authority. An advertisement shall also be published in a legal newspaper of general circulation in or as near as possible to that part of the county in which such work is to be done. If the county official newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation covering at least forty percent of the residences in that part of the county in which such public works are to be done, then the publication of an advertisement of the applicable specifications in the county official newspaper shall be sufficient. Such advertisements shall be published at least once at least 13 days prior to the last date upon which bids will be received. The bids shall be in writing, shall be filed with the clerk, shall be opened and read in public at the time and place named therefor in the advertisements, and after being opened, shall be filed for public inspection. No bid may be considered for public work unless it is accompanied by a bid deposit in the form of a surety bond, postal money order, cash, cashier's check, or certified check in an amount equal to five percent of the amount of the bid proposed. The contract for the public work shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. Any or all bids may be rejected for good cause. The county legislative authority shall require from the successful bidder for such public work a contractor's bond in the amount and with the conditions imposed by law. If the bidder to whom the contract is awarded fails to enter into the contract and furnish the contractor's bond as required within ten days after notice of the award, exclusive of the day of notice, the amount of the bid deposit shall be forfeited to the county and the contract awarded to the next lowest and best bidder. A low bidder who claims error and fails to enter into a contract is prohibited from bidding on the same project if a second or subsequent call for bids is made for the project. The bid deposit of all unsuccessful bidders shall be returned after the contract is awarded and the required contractor's bond given by the successful bidder is accepted by the county legislative authority. In the letting of any contract for public works involving less than forty thousand dollars, advertisement and competitive bidding may be dispensed with on order of the county legislative authority. Immediately after the award is made, the bid quotations obtained shall be recorded and open to public inspection and shall be available by telephone inquiry.
As an alternative to requirements under this section, a county may let contracts using the small works roster process under RCW 39.04.151 through 39.04.154.
This section does not apply to performance-based contracts, as defined in RCW 39.35A.020(6), that are negotiated under chapter 39.35A RCW.
[ 2023 c 395 s 25; 2009 c 229 s 8; 2000 c 138 s 207; 1996 c 18 s 3; 1993 c 198 s 8; 1991 c 363 s 58. Prior: 1989 c 431 s 57; 1989 c 244 s 6; prior: 1985 c 369 s 1; 1985 c 169 s 9; 1977 ex.s. c 267 s 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 230 s 1; 1967 ex.s. c 144 s 16; 1967 c 97 s 1; 1965 c 113 s 1; 1963 c 4 s 36.32.250; prior: 1945 c 61 s 2; Rem. Supp. 1945 s 10322-16.]

Notes:

Effective date—2023 c 395 ss 1-30, 32-34, 36, and 37: See note following RCW 39.04.010.
Findings—Intent—2023 c 395: See note following RCW 39.04.010.
Purpose—Part headings not law—2000 c 138: See notes following RCW 39.04.010.
Purpose—Captions not law—1991 c 363: See notes following RCW 2.32.180.
Severability—1967 ex.s. c 144: See note following RCW 36.900.030.
Subcontractors to be identified by bidder, when: RCW 39.30.060.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1977–2015 · leading case: Sw. Washington Chapter, Nat'l Elec. Contractors Ass'n v. Pierce Cnty., 667 P.2d 1092 (Wash. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sw. Washington Chapter, Nat'l Elec. Contractors Ass'n v. Pierce Cnty., 667 P.2d 1092 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 5× “I COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS With certain exceptions not pertinent here, RCW 36.32.250 requires that all public works contracts be awarded by competitive bidding.”
Washington Waste Sys., Inc. v. Clark Cnty., 794 P.2d 508 (Wash. 1990). · cites it 4× “See RCW 36.32.250. This procedure has extremely detailed notice requirements and, most importantly, requires the County to award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder.”
Associated Gen. Contractors of Washington v. KING CTY., 881 P.2d 996 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 4× “AGC refers to RCW 36.32.250 as one source of support for its contention that RCW 36.”
State ex rel. Citizens v. Murphy, 151 Wash. 2d 226 (Wash. 2004). “, we found that Clark County did not violate RCW 36.32.250, the statute calling for a competitive bid in executing a solid waste contract, bycause the legislature created an alternative procedure for certain waste contracts under RCW 36.”
State Ex Rel.(cat) v. Murphy, 88 P.3d 375 (Wash. 2004). “, we found that Clark County did *385 not violate RCW 36.32.250, the statute calling for a competitive bid in executing a solid waste contract, because the legislature created an alternative procedure for certain waste contracts under RCW 36.”
Ronken v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 572 P.2d 1 (Wash. 1977). “933 (RCW 36.32.250). 2 RCW 36.78.020 provides: "'Standards of good practice' shall mean general and uniform practices formulated and adopted by the board relating to the administration of county roads for the several classes of counties which shall apply to engineering,…”
Heller v. McClure & Sons, Inc., 963 P.2d 923 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “352 (cities); RCW 36.32.250 (counties). 14 109 Wn.2d 819 .”
King Cnty. v. Vinci Constr. Grands Projets/Parsons RCI/Frontier-Kemper, JV, 191 Wash. App. 142 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Because Brightwater was a public works project, the County was required to comply with RCW 36.32.250, which requires the County to award the contract to the lowest bidder.”
Hanson Excavating Co. v. Cowlitz Cnty., 622 P.2d 1285 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “The trial court granted Cowlitz County's motion for summary judgment and plaintiff appealed.”
Land Constr. Co. v. Snohomish Cnty., 698 P.2d 1120 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “Because Land Construction's bid contained a material variance from the call for bids, it was not responsive to the call for bids, and Snohomish County had "good cause" under RCW 36.32.250 to reject it. Affirmed. Scholfield, A.”
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.