When did South Carolina's procurement code apply to a school district's construction project in 2004?

Plain-English summary

In a short January 2004 letter about school construction, South Carolina's Attorney General said the Consolidated Procurement Code applied to school districts with annual expenditures of seventy-five million dollars, including debt service, except as the law otherwise provided. If the Fort Mill district met that condition, the letter directed its superintendent to the state's Materials Management Office.

For a district outside that provision, the AG pointed to a separate requirement for political subdivisions to adopt appropriately competitive procurement procedures and suggested discussing an adopted procedure with local counsel or the state office. The letter did not decide whether Fort Mill met the threshold or give a direct ruling on the proposed design-bid-build method.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2004. 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.

Historical summary

School district officials

The letter separated districts covered by the procurement code's expenditure threshold from other political subdivisions. It made its response conditional on the district's status and did not state Fort Mill's annual budget.

Common questions

Did the AG approve Fort Mill's proposed construction procurement method?
No. The letter identified applicable thresholds and points of contact without approving or rejecting a specific project method.

What threshold did the 2004 letter identify for school districts?
Annual expenditures of seventy-five million dollars, including debt service, subject to exceptions in the law.

What did the letter say about districts outside that provision?
It pointed to the duty of political subdivisions to adopt procedures embodying sound principles of appropriately competitive procurement.

Background and statutory framework

Fort Mill's superintendent asked about the procurement code and design-bid-build school construction. The AG responded with the school-district threshold and the separate political-subdivision procedure, then referred the superintendent to state procurement officials or local counsel as applicable.

Citations and references

The opinion referred to the Consolidated Procurement Code and its provisions on political subdivisions.

Official title

Asking about the applicability of S.C. Code Ann. § 11-35-3245 (Supp. 2002) of the Consolidated Procurement Code to the design-bid-build process for construction of school facilities.

Requester

Mr. TEC Dowling, Superintendent, Fort Mill School District No. 4

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/january-7-2004/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/04jan7dowlimg.pdf

Original opinion text

r

l

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMM>'TER

ATI'ORNEY GENERAL

January 7, 2004
Mr. TEC Dowling
Superintendent
Fort Mill School District No. 4
120 East Elliott Street
Fort Mill, SC 29715

I

I

Dear Superintendent Dowling:
You have asked about the applicability of S.C. Code Ann. § 11 -35-3245 (Supp. 2002) of the Consolidated Procurement Code to the design-bid-build process for construction ofschool facilities. Please note that school districts are subject to the Procurement Code if they have annual budgets of seventy-five million dollars in expenditures, including debt service, except as provided in that law (Ops. Atty. Gen., February 16, 1989). If your District is subject to this provision, I suggest that you contact the Materials Management Office of the Budget and Control Board at 120 l Main Street, Suite 600, Columbia (ph. 803-737-0635). If your District is not subject to this provision,§ 11-35-50 provides that all political subdivisions shall adopt ordinances or procedures embodying sound principles of appropriately competitive procurement. See also§ 11-35-310(18). Ifyour District bas adopted a procedure under §I 1-35-50, you may want to discuss that procedure with your local counsel or with the Materials Management Office.

If we may be of other assistance, please let us know.

Yours~~~

/-~~~

'i E~o-cy s~ Jr. ·

Assistant Deputy Attorney General

REl.mERT

,/.

c. D ENNIS B UllDING • POST OFFICE Box 11549 • C OLUMBIA, s.c. 2921 1-1 549 • TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970 • FACSlMIU!: 803-253-6283

,- V ,-;-;:_