Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. v. City of Rochester, 67 N.Y.2d 854 (1986)
A municipal ordinance that establishes a precondition to awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder is inconsistent with General Municipal Law § 103 and is thus invalid unless expressly authorized by the legislature.
Summary
This case addresses whether a municipal ordinance requiring contractors to participate in apprentice training programs as a condition for bidding on city contracts violates New York’s General Municipal Law § 103, which mandates competitive bidding. The Court of Appeals held that the ordinance was invalid because it imposed a precondition not expressly authorized by the legislature, thereby conflicting with the state’s policy of fostering honest competition to secure the best work at the lowest price. The court emphasized that while apprentice training is a desirable goal, it cannot be a mandatory qualification affecting an otherwise responsible low bidder.
Facts
The City of Rochester enacted Ordinance 82-450, which required contractors bidding on city projects to participate in apprentice training programs. Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. challenged the ordinance, arguing that it violated General Municipal Law § 103, which requires competitive bidding for municipal contracts.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court, Monroe County, initially granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, declaring the ordinance invalid and enjoining its enforcement. The Appellate Division reversed this decision. The Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division’s order, reinstating the Supreme Court’s original ruling.
Issue(s)
Whether a municipal ordinance that establishes participation in apprentice training programs as a precondition to awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder is inconsistent with General Municipal Law § 103 and, therefore, invalid.
Holding
Yes, because the ordinance imposes a precondition to the award of a contract that is not expressly authorized by the legislature and thus conflicts with the state’s competitive bidding requirements.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized the strong public policy of fostering honest competition to obtain the best work or supplies at the lowest possible price, as embodied in General Municipal Law § 103. The court stated that a municipal ordinance establishing a precondition to the award of a contract to the lowest responsible bidder is invalid unless expressly authorized by the legislature. While Labor Law Article 23 encourages apprenticeship programs, it applies only when a contractor voluntarily elects to conform with its provisions. Similarly, while Labor Law § 220 allows paying apprentices less than the prevailing wage under certain conditions, its purpose is to equalize labor costs, not to mandate apprentice training. The court noted, “[t]he predominate purpose of the State Legislature was the protection of the public fisc by requiring competitive bidding (General Municipal Law § 103), that apprentice training, while a desirable end, was not intended by the State Legislature to affect the qualification of an otherwise responsible low bidder.” Therefore, the ordinance was invalid because it conflicted with General Municipal Law § 103. The court distinguished *Matter of Skyway Roofing v County of Rensselaer*, noting that the prior case suggested apprentice training was already required by statute, a suggestion with which the court now disagreed. The court clarified that even a broader reading of the *Skyway Roofing* decision would not have precedential effect because the denial of leave to appeal is not a binding decision.