60 N.Y.2d 887 (1983)
A petitioner challenging the award of a government contract bears the burden of proving that the contract was improperly awarded.
Summary
I. Janvey & Sons, Inc. challenged the award of a county contract to Halbro/Control Industries, Inc., alleging that Halbro’s bid was deficient. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that Janvey failed to meet its burden of proving the contract was improperly awarded to Halbro. The Court emphasized that Janvey needed to demonstrate specific deficiencies in Halbro’s bid, which it failed to do. The case underscores the importance of presenting concrete evidence when challenging government contract awards and highlights the deference given to contracting authorities when evaluating bids that meet the “or equal” standard.
Facts
Nassau County solicited bids for certain products, specifying Johnson products “or equal”. I. Janvey & Sons, Inc. submitted a bid for Johnson products. Halbro/Control Industries, Inc. also submitted a bid. I. Janvey & Sons, Inc. challenged the awarding of the contract to Halbro, arguing that Halbro’s bid failed to include required spectrophotometer prints and that its products did not meet performance standards. The county buyer stated that only Janvey met the specifications.
Procedural History
I. Janvey & Sons, Inc. initially prevailed at Special Term. The Appellate Division reversed the Special Term’s decision. Halbro/Control Industries, Inc. appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, which reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the judgment of Special Term.
Issue(s)
Whether I. Janvey & Sons, Inc. met its burden of proving that the contract was improperly awarded to Halbro/Control Industries, Inc.
Holding
No, because I. Janvey & Sons, Inc. failed to provide sufficient evidence that Halbro’s bid was deficient or that its products failed to meet the required specifications.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals found that I. Janvey & Sons, Inc. failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims that Halbro’s bid was deficient. The Court noted that Halbro did submit the required spectrophotometer prints. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that since the bids were solicited on the basis of Johnson products “or equal,” the county buyer’s conclusory statement that Janvey was the only vendor meeting specifications was not binding on the commissioner and was insufficient to meet Janvey’s burden of proof. The Court implicitly acknowledged the discretion afforded to contracting authorities in determining whether a product is “equal” to the specified standard. This case highlights the evidentiary burden on a party challenging a government contract award and the importance of providing concrete evidence of deficiencies in the winning bid. The court stated, “It was petitioner’s burden to establish that the contract had been improperly awarded to Halbro… The papers submitted to Special Term established, however, that Halbro submitted prints as required by the bid notice and failed to indicate in what respects its products did not meet the bid specifications.”