Matter of ACME Bus Corp. v. Orange County, 27 N.Y.3d 421 (2016)

A municipality awarding contracts under General Municipal Law § 104-b acts arbitrarily and capriciously if it deviates from the evaluation criteria specified in its Request for Proposals (RFP).

Summary

ACME Bus Corp. challenged Orange County’s award of transportation contracts, arguing the county changed the cost evaluation formula outlined in the RFP after bids were submitted, resulting in an arbitrary and capricious decision. The New York Court of Appeals agreed, holding that the county’s deviation from its stated evaluation criteria violated its own procurement policy and undermined fairness, potentially suggesting favoritism. The court reversed the lower court’s ruling, emphasizing that municipalities must adhere to the rules established in their RFPs to ensure transparency and prevent the appearance of impropriety in the procurement process, even if no actual misconduct is demonstrated.

Facts

Orange County issued an RFP for preschool special education transportation services. The RFP detailed a point-based evaluation system, including a cost category. The RFP specified a percentage-to-points ratio for cost evaluation (e.g., a 10% cost difference would result in a 2-point deduction). ACME submitted a proposal with the lowest cost for some zones but was not awarded the contracts. After bids were received, the county deviated from the RFP’s cost evaluation formula. ACME argued that applying the original formula would have resulted in a higher score for ACME in at least one zone. The county defended its actions as an attempt to ensure the lowest cost was chosen.

Procedural History

ACME initiated an Article 78 proceeding in the Supreme Court challenging the contract awards. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no arbitrariness. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted ACME leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Orange County’s deviation from the cost evaluation formula stated in its RFP rendered its contract award arbitrary and capricious.

Holding

1. Yes, because the county failed to adhere to its own procurement policy and deviated from the RFP’s stated evaluation criteria, rendering the award arbitrary and capricious.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals found that Orange County acted arbitrarily and capriciously for two reasons: (1) the county violated its own procurement policy, which required adherence to RFP evaluation criteria; and (2) the deviation gave rise to the appearance of impropriety and potentially favored one bidder. The court reasoned that changing the rules after bids were submitted undermined fairness, contradicted the goals of General Municipal Law § 104-b (ensuring prudent use of public funds and preventing favoritism), and opened the process to the appearance of corruption. The court emphasized that, even absent evidence of bad faith, a municipality must comply with its own rules. The Court distinguished this case from situations where the bidding statute (General Municipal Law § 103) applies, but noted the overarching legislative purposes – protecting public funds and preventing fraud or corruption – were the same under both statutes.

Practical Implications

Municipalities must strictly adhere to the evaluation criteria outlined in their RFPs to avoid arbitrary and capricious challenges. Any changes to evaluation methods after bid submission can lead to court challenges and potential reversal of the contract award, even absent evidence of actual corruption. This case emphasizes the importance of clear, unambiguous language in RFPs and following established procedures. Legal practitioners advising municipalities should ensure their clients understand that they cannot change the rules mid-process. Any desire to alter an evaluation process must be addressed by rejecting all bids and reissuing the RFP, not by changing the rules after proposals have been submitted.