 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
BIDDER CONTRACT TRANSPORTATION SCHOOL NEGOTIATIONS PETITIONER AWARD EDUCATION ROUTES LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER PUBLICATION AGGREGATE POST BID BIDDING LAW COURT NY2D SCHOOL DISTRICT MATTER APPELLATE VENDORS COMPETITIVE BIDDING COSTS DETERMINATION GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW REGULAR TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL EDUCATION CONDUIT SUPRA |
IN THE MATTER OF ACME BUS CORP., APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
ROOSEVELT UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
91 N.Y.2d 51, 689 N.E.2d 890, 666 N.Y.S.2d 996 (1997).
December 4, 1997
2 No. 230
(97 NY Int. 0214)
Decided December 4, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
SMITH, J.:
In this matter, a school board solicited contract bids in two
alternative categories for school transportation routes the first
category for each individual transportation route in the school
district, and a second for all the routes in theaggregate. The board
chose to award the contracts to the lowest responsible bidders in the
aggregate category and then sought to obtain further price concessions
through post bid negotiations with these vendors. Petitioner, one of
the lowest bidders in the first, individual category, argues that the
post bid negotiations conducted by the board violated New York's
competitive bidding laws. Because petitioner has failed to demonstrate
that the award process was unlawful or improper, we decline to set
aside the determination of the school board.
During June 1995, the School Board of the Roosevelt Union Free School
District solicited bids in accordance with Education Law
305(14)(a) and General Municipal Law § 103 for "Regular
Transportation" and "Special Education Transportation" contracts. For
both the regular transportation contract and the special education
contract, the District requested bidders to submit alternative
proposals. Bidders were asked to submit one bid for each individual
transportation route (the individual bids) as well as a second bid
combining all the routes under each contract (the aggregate bids) in
the two school transportation categories. The Board reserved the right
to award either contract on an individual route basis or an aggregate
basis.
Seven carriers submitted bids. For the regular transportation routes,
the lowest aggregate bid was $516,035 by We Transport while the sum of
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
