🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
TX JM-444 February 21, 1986

Could Texas counties, cities, hospital districts, and school districts buy products or services from disabled-person programs without competitive bidding?

Short answer: Yes. JM-444 concluded that the specific Human Resources Code exception for purchases from blind or severely disabled persons controlled over the general competitive-bidding statutes for those political subdivisions.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1986. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Texas law, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1986
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: This is an official Texas Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority in Texas courts but are not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. The opinion dates from 1986; verify current statutes and case law before relying on it.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official AG opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original AG opinion (PDF)

Texas AG Opinion JM-444: Purchases from Disabled-Person Programs

Plain-English summary

Human Resources Code section 122.014 allowed political subdivisions to substitute equivalent products or services produced by blind or severely disabled persons and said nonprofit agencies serving those workers were not required to engage in competitive bidding. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0444.pdf

The request asked whether counties, cities, hospital districts, and school districts could use that provision when their general purchasing statutes otherwise required competitive bidding. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0444.pdf

JM-444 answered yes. The specific disabled-vendor purchasing exception prevailed over the more general bidding statutes for each type of political subdivision. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0444.pdf

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did the exception apply only to counties?

No. JM-444 extended the same reasoning to cities, hospital districts, and school districts because their bidding laws were also general statutes. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0444.pdf

Why did section 122.014 control?

The opinion applied the rule that a specific statute prevails over a general statute addressing the same subject. Section 122.014 specifically governed purchases of products and services produced by blind or severely disabled persons. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0444.pdf

Did a nonprofit disabled-person program have to compete for the contract?

No. The statute expressly said nothing in the chapter required such a nonprofit agency to engage in competitive bidding. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0444.pdf

Background and statutory framework

Section 122.014 let political subdivisions buy through their authorized purchasing procedures while substituting equivalent products or services produced under the disabled-person procurement chapter. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0444.pdf

The opinion identified general competitive-bidding provisions for counties, cities, hospital districts, and school districts and concluded that they did not apply to purchases made under the more specific Human Resources Code provision. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0444.pdf

Citations and references

  • Human Resources Code section 122.014
  • article 2368a, V.T.C.S., section 2
  • article 4494q, V.T.C.S., section 34
  • Education Code section 21.901

Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0444.pdf

Source

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF via OCR. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

The Attorney General of Texas

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General

February 21, 1986

Mr. Gibson DuTerroil
Chairperson
Texas Committee on Purchases of Products and Services of Blind and Severely Disabled Persons
314 Highland Mall Boulevard
Suite 258
Austin, Texas 78752

Opinion No. JM-444

Re: Applicability to counties, cities, hospital districts, and school districts of chapter 122 of the Human Resources Code, which relates to the procurement of the products or services of disabled individuals

Dear Mr. DuTerroil:

You ask about the apparent conflict between a statute that allows political subdivisions to purchase products or services produced by disabled persons without engaging in competitive bidding and statutes that require certain political subdivisions to engage in competitive bidding.

Section 122.014 of the Human Resources Code provides:

A product manufactured for sale to a political subdivision of this state or an office or department thereof shall be manufactured or produced according to specifications developed by the purchaser. A political subdivision of this state may purchase products or services for its use from private businesses through its authorized purchasing procedures, but may substitute equivalent products or services produced by blind or other severely disabled persons under the provisions of this chapter. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require a nonprofit agency for blind or other severely disabled persons to engage in competitive bidding. (Emphasis added).

You ask whether counties, cities, school districts, and hospital districts may purchase products or services from the disabled without engaging in competitive bidding pursuant to section 122.014 even under circumstances in which other statutes require them to engage in competitive bidding.

In Attorney General Opinion JM-385 (1985), we considered whether a county was required to comply with the competitive bidding procedure set out in the County Purchasing Act, article 2368a, V.T.C.S., before it could purchase goods or services from the disabled pursuant to section 122.014 of the Human Resources Code. Because specific statutes prevail over general statutes on the same subject, we concluded that the specific exception from competitive bidding set out in section 122.014 of the Human Resources Code prevailed over the general requirements of the County Purchasing Act when the county purchased goods or services from the disabled.

The same reasoning applies to the other political subdivisions you ask about. General statutes require cities, hospitals, and school districts to engage in competitive bidding before they make certain purchases. V.T.C.S. art. 2368a, § 2 (cities); V.T.C.S. art. 4494q, § 34 (hospital districts); Educ. Code § 21.901 (school districts). Those general statutes are inapplicable, however, to a situation in which one of those subdivisions purchases goods or services pursuant to section 122.014 of the Human Resources Code.

SUMMARY

General statutes that require counties, cities, hospital districts, and school districts to engage in competitive bidding in order to make certain purchases do not apply to purchases such political subdivisions make pursuant to section 122.014 of the Human Resources Code.

Very truly yours,

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney General

MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General

ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Sarah Woelk
Assistant Attorney General

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1986 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.