Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 52.14.110 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Insofar as practicable, purchases and any public works by the district shall be based on competitive bids. A formal sealed bid procedure shall be used as standard procedure for purchases and contracts for purchases executed by the board of commissioners. Formal sealed bidding shall not be required for:
(a) The purchase of any materials, supplies, or equipment if the cost will not exceed the sum of $75,500. However, whenever the estimated cost does not exceed $150,000, the commissioners may by resolution use the process provided in RCW 39.04.190 to award contracts;
(b) Contracting for work to be done involving the construction or improvement of a fire station or other buildings where the estimated cost will not exceed the sum of $150,000 if more than a single craft or trade is involved with the public works project, or a public works project in excess of $75,500 if only a single craft or trade is involved with the public works project;
(d) Any contract for purchases or public work pursuant to RCW 39.04.280 if an exemption contained within that section applies to the purchase or public work.
(2) A fire protection district may have its own regularly employed personnel perform work which is an accepted industry practice under prudent utility management without a contract. For purposes of this section, "prudent utility management" means performing work with regularly employed personnel utilizing material of a worth not exceeding $300,000 in value without a contract. This limit on the value of material being utilized in work being performed by regularly employed personnel shall not include the value of individual items of equipment. For the purposes of this section, the term "equipment" includes but is not limited to conductor, cabling, wire, pipe, or lines used for electrical, water, fiber optic, or telecommunications.
(3) For the purposes of this section, "lowest responsible bidder" means a bid that meets the criteria under RCW 39.04.350 and has the lowest bid; provided, that if the district issues a written finding that the lowest bidder has delivered a project to the district within the last three years which was late, over budget, or did not meet specifications, and the district does not find in writing that such bidder has shown how they would improve performance to be likely to meet project specifications then the district may choose the second lowest bidder whose bid is within five percent of the lowest bid and meets the same criteria as the lowest bidder.
[ 2023 c 395 s 30; 2023 c 255 s 5; 2019 c 434 s 12; 2009 c 229 s 9; 2001 c 79 s 1; 2000 c 138 s 209; 1998 c 278 s 5; 1993 c 198 s 11; 1984 c 238 s 3.]
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.
Effective date—2023 c 255 ss 1-5: See note following RCW 54.04.070.
Finding—Intent—2019 c 434: See note following RCW 35.23.352.
Purpose—Part headings not law—2000 c 138: See notes following RCW 39.04.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 2001–2002 · leading case: In re the Recall of East, 144 Wash. 2d 807 (Wash. 2001).
In re the Recall of East, 144 Wash. 2d 807 (Wash. 2001). “First, Commissioner Chappell asserted that Commissioner Kast sought to avoid the competitive bidding process required by RCW 52.14.110 by unlawfully splitting a culvert ditch project into two separate jobs.”
In Re Recall of Kast, 31 P.3d 677 (Wash. 2001). “First, Commissioner Chappell asserted that Commissioner Kast sought to avoid the competitive bidding process required by RCW 52.14.110 by unlawfully splitting a culvert ditch project into two separate jobs.”
Quinn Constr. Co. v. King Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 26, 44 P.3d 865 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 52.14.110. The District published an invitation to bid on a project to expand a fire station *24 facility.”
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.