Section 2.1.10 Conclusion

• Library: Construction Law Practice Manual 3rd Edition 2016

§ 2.1.10 Conclusion

Three signal events have occurred in Arizona state and local public procurement law in the last 30 years. First, in 1984 the Legislature adopted the state procurement code, which went into effect in 1985 and drew closer together very fragmented public procurement law. Second, in 2000, Arizona adopted the alternative delivery methods for public construction work. Third, over the 30 years since adoption of the state procurement code, the Board of Regents, the State Board of Education, and numerous cities and counties have adopted a procurement code or rules for application to their jurisdictions modeled after the state procurement code. While Arizona procurement law thus remains partly fractured, the basic concepts found in the state procurement code set the pattern for most public procurement in Arizona. The code sets forth rules for public bidding and contract formation, which mark significant progress for Arizona public contract law.

Cases

Achen-Gardner v. Superior Court, 173 Ariz. 48, 50, 839 P.2d 1093 (1992)................................................... 1, 3

Aesthetic Prop. Maint., Inc. v. Capitol Indem., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P.2d 1210 (1995).................................. 2.1-16

Arnold Constr. Co. v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 109 Ariz. 495, 512 P.2d 1229 (1979)............................... 2.1-16

Blount v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 221 (1990)................................................................................................. 2.1-14

Blount, 22 Cl. Ct. at 226............................................................................................................................... 2.1-14, 15

Brown v. City of Phoenix, 77 Ariz. 368, 252 P.2d 358 (1954)...................................................................... 2.1-13

Brown v. City of Phoenix, 77 Ariz. 368, 373, 272 P.2d 358 (1954)........................................................ 2.1-1, 13

Chaney v. City of Tucson, 148 Ariz. 571, 716 P.2d 28 (1986)......................................................................... 2.1-6

City of Phoenix v. Superior Court, 184 Ariz. 435, 909 P.2d 502 (Ct. App. 1995)................................... 2.1-17

City of Scottsdale v. Deem, 27 Ariz. App. 480, 556 P.2d 328 (1975)........................................................... 2.1-5

City of Scottsdale v. Deem, 27 Ariz. App. 480, 482 556 P.2d 328 (1975).................................................... 2.1-9

Covington v. Basich Bros. Constr. Co., 72 Ariz. 280, 233 P.2d 837 (1952).................................................... 2.1-5

Grand Canyon Pipe Lines, Inc. v. City of Tempe, 168 Ariz. 590, 816 P.2d 247 (Ct. App. 1991)............. 2.1-5

Grand Canyon Pipelines, Inc. v. City of Tempe, 168 Ariz. 590, 816 P.2d 247 (Ct. App. 1991)............... 2.1-15

Hertz Drive-Your-Self Sys. v. Tucson Airport Auth., 81 Ariz. 80, 84, 299 P.2d 1071 (1956).................. 2.1-1

Kemper Constr. Co. v. Los Angeles, 235 P.2d 7 (Cal. 1950).............................................................................. 2.1-9

Marana Unified Sch. Dist. No. 6v. Aetna Cas. & Sur., 144 Ariz. 159, 696 P.2d 711 (Ct. App. 1984) 2.1-10

Marshall v. Dietrich, 30 Ariz. 54, 243 P. 910 (1926)..................................................................................... 2.1-16

...