## Facts

- A county school district undertook construction of a high school with limited funds and omitted several potential items from the initial bid package, including an underground football-field sprinkling system.
- After construction began, additional state funds became available, and the school board decided to install the sprinkling system at the lowest feasible cost.
- The board advertised for competitive bids for materials only, purchased materials from the low bidder, and planned to have regularly employed maintenance personnel perform the installation during available time.
- Trade associations representing plumbing and related contractors sought an injunction, asserting the board was required to competitively bid the work under a statute mandating bids when a schoolhouse is built or an improvement is constructed costing more than $20,000.
- The trial court denied injunctive relief, finding for the board, and the plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether installation of the football-field sprinkling system had to be competitively bid because it was part of “building” the schoolhouse project.
2. Whether the sprinkling system was an “improvement” subject to the competitive-bidding statute.
3. Whether the board unlawfully evaded the competitive-bidding requirement by bidding materials while using in-house labor for installation.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the denial of an injunction.
- The court held the board did not violate the competitive-bidding statute by purchasing materials through bidding and using its own maintenance employees to install the system.
- The court accepted the trial court’s finding that the board acted in good faith to reduce costs, not to evade statutory requirements.

## Legal Principles

- A school board has only those powers granted by statute or reasonably implied, but statutory grants authorizing construction, repair, improvement, and acts “needful” for school maintenance confer broad administrative discretion.
- The competitive-bidding statute applies when a covered project exceeds the statutory monetary threshold; whether a particular item must be treated as part of “building” a schoolhouse depends on the circumstances, including planning, timing, and funding.
- Competitive-bidding laws aim to prevent fraud and waste, but they do not necessarily require a public entity to contract out work when it can lawfully perform it with its own employees, particularly where the specific work is far below the bidding threshold and there is no bad faith or evasive purpose.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the school board’s decision to install a later-added, low-cost sprinkling system by competitively bidding materials and using in-house maintenance labor, concluding this did not breach Utah’s competitive-bidding statute absent proof of bad faith or deliberate evasion.


Utah Plumbing & Heating Contractors Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ. of Weber Cnty. Sch. Dist., 429 P.2d 49 (Utah 1967)