The term “piggybacking” in public contracting refers to a municipality using another government’s existing contract instead of running its own competitive bid. In Daniel J. Lynch, Inc. v. Board of Education of the Maine‑Endwell Central School District, the New York Appellate Court made it clear that this shortcut has strict limits. The court held that a school district cannot award a public‑works construction contract by piggybacking through a cooperative purchasing system. Under New York’s General Municipal Law, piggybacking is permitted only for buying goods and related services, not for construction or renovation projects. The decision underscores that cooperative purchasing is a narrow exception, not a substitute for the competitive bidding requirements that govern public‑works contracts.
The school district had finished phase one of a multiyear capital project. When phase two—HVAC upgrades and classroom construction—was delayed by the State Education Department, the district chose not to wait. Instead of putting the HVAC work out for competitive bidding, it turned to a “piggyback” contract through The Interlocal Purchasing System (TIPS). TIPS, a Texas‑based cooperative formed in 2002, allows municipalities nationwide to use contracts and pricing it has already secured. Using its preapproved vendor list, TIPS matched the district with a contractor based on pre‑negotiated pricing.
Local contractors challenged the award, claiming the district sidestepped the competitive bidding rules required under the General Municipal Law. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the district’s use of TIPS amounted to improper piggybacking for a public works project. While the court allowed the contractor to finish the HVAC work already underway, it prohibited the district from relying on TIPS or similar cooperatives for the remaining phases of the project.
The Appellate Division affirmed the ruling. It emphasized that General Municipal Law § 103(16)—the statute permitting piggybacking—covers only purchases of “apparatus, materials, equipment or supplies” and related installation or maintenance services. It does not mention public works contracts. As the court explained, leaving out public works contracts from the statute shows that the Legislature did not intend to exempt them from competitive bidding. The legislative history supported this point: when the provision was enacted, lawmakers described it as a tool for cooperative purchasing, not a way to award construction or renovation projects.
The court also dismissed the contractor’s appeal for lack of harm, since none of the relief sought against the contractor—such as repayment, an injunction, or fees—was granted. The contractor’s claim that the ruling might affect its future business was too speculative to give it standing. The court’s decision is clear: cooperative purchasing cannot be used to avoid competitive bidding for public works. It is a limited exception meant only for buying goods and related services.
Jose A. Aquino (@JoseAquinoEsq on X) is a special counsel at Duane Morris LLP’s New York office, where he is a member of Construction Group, specializing in construction law, lien law, and government procurement law. He is also a member of the Cuba Business Group.
This blog is prepared and published for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Duane Morris LLP or its individual attorneys.