Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: M.L. CACCAMISE ELECTRIC CORP., PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. CITY OF ROCHESTER AND POWER & CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., RESPONDENTS–RESPONDENTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
COUCH WHITE, LLP, ALBANY (JOEL M. HOWARD, III, OF COUNSEL), FOR ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF NEW YORK STATE, LLC, AMICUS CURIAE.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner, an electrical contractor, submitted the low bid for a street lighting project, which required that certain lights owned by respondent City of Rochester (City) be separated and isolated from the Rochester Gas & Electric (RG & E) electrical and distribution system. After the City rejected petitioner's bid and awarded the contract to respondent Power & Construction Group, Inc. (Power), petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking a judgment “[a]nnulling ․ the award” of the contract to Power, and “[d]irecting the award” of the contract to petitioner “as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.” Supreme Court properly denied the petition.
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the City's rejection of petitioner's bid was not affected by an error of law, and was not arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Section 2.1.1 of the City's invitation to bid provided that the City's intent was “[t]o obtain the services of an [RG & E] approved electrical utility contractor with the necessary expertise to isolate/separate the specified City owned Street Lighting facilities from the [RG & E] distribution network as directed by the City.” Given the unique nature of the project—notably, the existence of an agreement between the City and RG & E, and the fact that any contractor who was hired for the project would be working on private RG & E property, facilities, and equipment—we conclude that the court properly determined that section 2.1.1 included a valid precondition that did not impede competition and that had a rational relationship to obtaining the best work at the lowest price (see Matter of P & C Giampilis Constr. Corp. v Diamond, 210 A.D.2d 64, 65–66; see also Le Cesse Bros. Contr. v Town Bd. of Williamson, 62 A.D.2d 28, 31, affd 46 N.Y.2d 960; Matter of B. Milligan Contr. v State of New York, 251 A.D.2d 1084, 1084). In addition, the record is clear that petitioner's bid was “non-responsive to the specific requirements set forth in [section 2.1.1]” inasmuch as petitioner was not on RG & E's list of approved contractors and did not have the requisite training and experience to work with RG & E's distribution network (P & C Giampilis Constr. Corp., 210 A.D.2d at 65).
We reject petitioner's further contention that the City's use of RG & E's list of approved contractors was essentially a pretext for the City to avoid its purported obligations under General Municipal Law § 103(15) to consider certain factors in compiling a list of “qualified bidders.” The City did not maintain a list of “qualified bidders,” as that term is used in the statute, for its public works projects, and was under no obligation to do so (id.).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 14–00264
Decided: October 03, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)