Exception to seeking competitive bids for good and services

Exception to seeking competitive bids for good and services
Omni Recycling of Westbury, Inc. v Town of Oyster Bay, 11 NY3d 868

Typically a political subdivision of the State will solicit competitive bids for goods and services. However, this is not always the case, as the Omni Recycling decision by the Court of Appeals demonstrates.

The Town of Oyster Bay adopted a resolution authorizing the use of the procedures set out in General Municipal Law Section 104-b to obtain certain recycling services. Section 104-b provides for the procurement of goods and services without going through a competitive bidding process. The Town's Department of Public then distributed a RFP [Request for Proposals] for these recycling services to nine companies.

When another company, Giove Company was awarded the contract, Omni Recycling sued the Town and Giove, arguing that the Town should have used the competitive bidding process under General Municipal Law Section 103.

§103(1) provides, in part, that "[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by an act of the legislature or by a local law adopted prior to September first, nineteen hundred fifty-three, all contracts for public work involving an expenditure of more than twenty thousand dollars and all purchase contracts involving an expenditure of more than ten thousand dollars, shall be awarded . . . to the lowest responsible bidder furnishing the required security after advertisement for sealed bids in the manner provided by this section."

The Court of Appeals noted that “It has long been recognized that public work contracts that require the exercise of specialized or technical skills, expertise or knowledge are not subject to the sealed, competitive bidding requirements under §103 and may instead be awarded using the Request for Proposals (RFP) process set forth in General Municipal Law §104-b.”

Of the nine companies to which the RFP was sent, ultimately the proposals submitted by Omni and Giove were evaluated by an independent consultant. A public hearing was conducted and the contract was awarded to Grove.

Reversing a lower court’s ruling, the Court of Appeals held that based on the description of the particular services to be rendered set out in the RFP, “this recycling contract fell within the special skills exception to the 'lowest responsible bidder' requirement of Section 103(1) and therefore was properly awarded using an RFP process consistent with the Section 104-b procedures adopted by the Town.”

The full text of the decisions is posted on the Internet at:http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_09850.htm