Articles Posted in Government Contracts

by
In 2013, the Orange County Department of General Services issued a request for proposals (RFP) from companies to provide transportation of children receiving preschool special education services in three transportation zones in the County. ACME Bus Corp. (ACME), which held the contract at the time, submitted two alternative proposals. Orange County awarded transportation contracts for the first two zones to Quality Bus Service, LLC and for the third zone to VW Trans, LLC. ACME subsequently commenced this proceeding against the County, Quality, and VW, seeking to vacate the award of the contracts. Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the County’s scoring mechanism in the cost category deviated from the formula stated in the RFP, and therefore, its award was arbitrary and capricious. View "ACME Bus Corp. v. Orange County" on Justia Law

by
Pursuant to a contract with the State of New York, defendant agreed to provide various courier services via air and ground transportation. Plaintiffs own a trucking company and served as an independent contractor to defendant, providing ground shipping services to defendant within the state. In this qui tam action, the court was asked to consider whether plaintiffs' claims on behalf of the State of New York, pursuant to the New York False Claims Act (FCA), State Finance Law 187 et seq., were federally preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA), 49 U.S.C 47173[b][1]. The court held that they were and that the market participant doctrine was inapplicable. Plaintiffs' remaining contentions were deemed without merit. View "State of New York v DHL Express (USA), Inc." on Justia Law

by
Appellant filed a petition, pursuant to CPLR article 78, to set aside the award of a contract to a third party and to direct the Town of Southeast to award the contract to appellant. At issue was whether the Town Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously and in violation of law in awarding the public bidding contract to a bidder other than the lowest responsible bidder. The court held that General Municipal Law 103 and Town Law 122 precluded a town, in an open bidding process, from choosing a higher bid merely because it subjectively believed that a higher bid was preferable and more responsible than a lower bidder based on criteria not set forth in the bidding proposal. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of AAA Carting and Rubbish Removal, Inc. " on Justia Law