CITIES AND TOWNS - OPTIONAL MUNICIPAL CODE - CONTRACTS - PUBLIC WORKS AND IMPROVEMENTS - PURCHASES - COMPETATIVE BIDS
CITIES AND TOWNS ‑- OPTIONAL MUNICIPAL CODE ‑- CONTRACTS ‑- PUBLIC WORKS AND IMPROVEMENTS ‑- PURCHASES ‑- COMPETATIVE BIDS (1) A code city is not required to call for competitive bids when contracting for the purchase of supplies, materials and equipment which are not being procured in connection with a public work or improvement project. (2) A code city is required to call for competitive bids when contracting for the purchase of equipment which is being procured in connection with a public work or improvement having an estimated cost in excess of five thousand dollars. (3) The provisions of chapter 56, Laws of 1975, 1st Ex. Sess., (now codified as RCW 35.22.620 ‑ 35.22.650) do not apply so as to permit a code city, when contracting for a public work or improvement, to refrain from calling for competitive bids if the estimated cost of such work or improvement, including the cost of materials, supplies and equipment, although in excess of five thousand dollars, does not exceed ten thousand dollars (or fifteen thousand dollars if the public work or improvement is for the construction of water mains).
CITIES AND TOWNS - OPTIONAL MUNICIPAL CODE - CONTRACTS - PUBLIC WORKS AND IMPROVEMENTS - PURCHASERS - COMPETITIVE BIDS
CITIES AND TOWNS ‑- OPTIONAL MUNICIPAL CODE ‑- CONTRACTS ‑- PUBLIC WORKS AND IMPROVEMENTS ‑- PURCHASERS ‑- COMPETITIVE BIDS (1) Under the provisions of RCW 35.23.352, as amended by § 1, Chapter 41, Laws of 1977, Ex.Sess., a second, third or fourth class city may still construct a public work or improvement having an estimated cost in excess of $5,000 through the use of its own labor force where the city has first called for bids but no responsive bids have been received; however, such a city may no longer construct a public work or improvement having an estimated cost in excess of $5,000 through the use of its own labor force where bids have been received but all such bids have been rejected. (2) Because code cities are governed by the same legal rules as apply to second, third and fourth class cities in the construction of public works or improvements, the foregoing conclusions are equally applicable to the ability of a code city to construct a public work or improvement through the use of its own labor force. (3) For the same reason a code city, after calling for bids and rejecting them, may not negotiate a contract for a public work or improvement without any further call for bids.
WASHINGTON STATE CONVENTION AND TRADE CENTER - STATE AGENCIES - PUBLIC WORKS AND IMPROVEMENTS - CONTRACTS - COMPETITIVE BIDDING
Authority of state agency to vary from bidding procedure Where the Legislature has authorized expansion of the Washington State Convention and Trade Center but has conditioned funding upon the receipt of contributions from a public or private co-developer, and has imposed further conditions which render it economically impracticable to call for public bids on those portions of the expansion project which will be "jointly" used by the co-developers, and the Convention and Trade Center will call for public bids on those portions of the project that are intended for its use as a state instrumentality, the public works laws are sufficiently flexible to allow the "joint" portions of the construction project to be designed and built by the co-developer without call for public bids.
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES - PUBLIC WORKS AND IMPROVEMENTS - CONTRACTS - APPRENTICESHIPS
Authority of a university to impose a bidding prequalification requirement that contractors must have an apprenticeship program A prequalification requirement prohibits a contractor from bidding on a public works contract unless the requirement is satisfied. There is no statute that establishes a prequalification requirement that contractors must have an apprenticeship program. In absence of such a statute, a university does not have the authority to establish such a prequalification requirement.
PUBLIC WORKS AND IMPROVEMENTS - STATE BUDGET - OFFICE OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT - STATE TREASURER
Interpretation of budget language authorizing construction on the “Wheeler Block” site in Olympia
1. The maximum occupancy cost per square foot provision of subsection (8) of the capital budget authorization for the “Wheeler Block” development applies only to the “office building” component of the proposed project. 2. In calculating the occupancy cost per square foot on the “Wheeler Block” project, the calculation may be performed on both a square foot and a per employee basis, but it is not necessary to perform both calculations on the same structures. 3. The lease rate adjustment that is to be performed based on “level of service” should take into account differences in essential systems and general services that are typically provided to office tenants. 4. The total cost of the “Wheeler Block” facilities to be financed will effectively be limited by a guaranteed maximum price development agreement. 5. With respect to the Office of Financial Management (OFM) certification referred to in the budget authorization for the “Wheeler Block” project, the Legislature assumes that OFM will properly exercise its discretion in making the certification; the law does not permit the state Treasurer to reject the certification as “inaccurate.” 6. A properly drafted financing contract that complies with RCW 39.94 and which is accompanied by (1) a properly drafted Finance Committee resolution and (2) properly drafted transaction and offering documents will not create state indebtedness; the use of 63-20 financing would not change this result. 7. Facilities that are constructed under properly authorized and structured “63-20 financings” do not constitute “public works” under RCW 39.04.