DEP Environmental Protection Invoices, 1999-2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

JUL-W-LUuA J4.1J UCY t1U o7D 34b1 r.b4/t]4

NEW YORK CITY CHARTER of 313 3ltoring Cary residents, it is necessary to require agencies to evaluate the period benefits of proposed service contncn costs and Thousand dollar that result in valued at mote than one hundred equly- displacement or a City cmployc. Sound procurement practice requires an 1 to the and geneitt, of providing a Knitsassessment by the agency of the costs in-house prior to any determination io td final solicit bias or proposals, o dctermirudon of the vides; the same Ibyire by contracuagrout casts and benefits of pro- tinar- and A comparison of the two. Ti,, legislation is designed to emnre Ierc'si of the ritlaens of the City of Newthat a contract is in the best in. York and its employcq. Such er s that legislation is not intended to delay or impede service process of the City, upon dine nomu) conuaceiob stained 5 313. Competitive sealed bidding. in, but fired to 2. The agency letting [he contract may 2 q for the interest of the city reject all bids if it shall dam a plan so to do; if not, it shall, without other t need •ur approval. award the contract consent to the lowest responsible bidder, sitions Flit• mayor shall determine unless in writing, justifying the reasons ch as. -t Is in the best interest of the city therefor, that that a bid other than that of the in the 'esponsible bidder shall be accepted. Such lowest shed in the City Record. Tie determination shall be pub- bids are to be decided by the agency ry em. dm contract and the award letting made. Whenever a contract is awarded d turn the lowest bidder because the to other lowest bidder is determined by I; a .Haney not to be a responsible bidder or .anted by the agency to not meet (he because the lowest bid is deter. the ation; tut the invitation for bids, requirements and criteria set forth +ages, the agency making such ,tw.rding such contract shall determination and ,I, termination and shall file immediately notify the lowest bidder of such in the Agency contract file a .a the reasons therefor. statement in detail

com- ndred

g the HISTORICAL NOTE Subd. b par 2 amended L.L 3/1997 1 2. e0, Ivan- Jan. 23. 1997. etion CASE NOTES ppm- I I. The City Sought to bypass me 'lowest responsible bidder e the eontnctn involving a combiesion or public work rule an work. The gun, howevee. held than and utility interference atici- this procedure would be improper. In other wordy, in the even[ that the lowest uired portion or the work differed from She leweal responsible bidder on the public this age (city wort plus utility work), dire City would respoeieibk bid on the pack. things' (I) reject all bids and call for have to do tither of two bidder on the package project was also rnubmission of bids until the lowest portion or the work: or (3) the Mayer the lowest bidder an the public curement Policy Beard and publish in thewould City have to file with the Pro- the City accepted a bid even though another Record an erplanadon why On the public portion or the work bid Contained a lower price 507crs, Matter of HuM (the cost of which was borne by era. A N.Y S.2d 994 tSup Newa York Co. 1993) '1 2. Section 103 of the Genml Municipal Law 1St M¢e.2d 759.

contracts must be awarded to the lowest provides that ritual amewne prodded by an er at the responsible bidder, except as fine Irgulyure or by a loyal law adopted prior to September I. 92 N.Y.1d 244, 678 N. Y.5.301053. In Diamond Asphalt Cory. v. Synder, 563 (1998), a law bidder who was no awarded a contract challenged the m anyone other than She lowest bidder.Mayor's authority to award She conoacs In Ciry Charter 313(b)(2) qualified as a localresponse, the City argued That Genml Municipal Law See. 103. Specifically, law within the meaning of when the City Charter war revised in 1989 the City contended that and laser approved by She

39

NYC-WTC 000137892