Public entities in New York frequently use cooperative purchasing (often called “piggybacking”) to save time and reduce administrative burden. In simple terms, piggybacking allows one public entity to use another governmental entity’s already-awarded contract rather than conducting its own procurement.
Used properly, piggybacking can be an efficient procurement tool. But a recent Appellate Division decision in Matter of Daniel J. Lynch, Inc. v. Board of Education of the Maine-Endwell Central School District (“Maine-Endwell”) makes one point clear: New York’s piggybacking statute does not authorize public owners to bypass competitive bidding for public works construction.
What the Court Said
General Municipal Law §103(1) generally requires public works contracts involving more than $35,000 and purchase contracts involving more than $20,000 to be competitively bid. Public works contracts must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder after advertisement for sealed bids, while purchase contracts may, in certain circumstances, be awarded on the basis of best value.
Section 103(16), the piggybacking provision, creates a limited exception allowing political subdivisions and districts to purchase apparatus, materials, equipment, or supplies, or to contract for services related to the installation, maintenance, or repair of those items, through certain contracts let by another governmental entity – provided the contract was properly awarded and made available for use by other governmental entities.
In Maine-Endwell, the Appellate court agreed that the district had improperly avoided the competitive bidding process required for public works, emphasizing that §103(16) does not refer to public works contracts, even though §103(1) does. That omission mattered, and in the court’s view, the Legislature intended piggybacking to apply to purchase contracts and related services, but not to construction and renovation projects.
Why It Matters
The decision is significant for school districts, municipalities, counties, and other public owners that have used cooperative purchasing arrangements for capital projects.
The court’s analysis focuses on the scope of the work, not the procurement label. If a project is public works construction in substance, it cannot be piggybacked under §103(16), regardless of how the procurement is labeled. If the work is primarily construction, renovation, site work, or another public works scope, the public owner must use the competitive bidding process required by New York law.
That means public owners should be cautious about using cooperative purchasing contracts for projects involving HVAC construction or major system renovations, demolition, classroom, building, or facility construction, sewer, utility, parking lot, or site work, or any other public works construction project.
Still eligible for piggybacking under General Municipal Law §103(16) are:
- Apparatus, materials, equipment, or supplies (where the statutory conditions are met)
- Installation, maintenance, or repair services tied to those items (as long as limited to and directly related to the purchased apparatus, materials, equipment, or supplies)
- Commodity-type purchases (routine purchases of goods, equipment, supplies, and materials)
Not eligible for piggybacking under General Municipal Law §103(16) are:
- Public works construction contracts
- Renovation or capital improvement projects where the work is construction in substance
- HVAC builds, demolition, classroom construction, site work, sewer work, parking lot construction, and similar scopes
Bottom Line
Piggybacking is still a useful tool for purchasing goods and related limited services, but it is not a shortcut for public works construction. Before relying on a cooperative purchasing contract, public owners should ask:
- Is the primary purpose of the contract to buy apparatus, materials, equipment, or supplies?
- Are any services limited to installation, maintenance, or repair of those items?
- Or is the work really construction, renovation, site work, or a capital improvement project?
If the answer to the third question is yes, the safer course is to proceed through traditional competitive bidding.
Public owners should also confirm that the underlying contract satisfies the requirements of §103(16). In general, the contract must have been:
- let by the United States, a federal agency, a state, or another political subdivision or district;
- made available for use by other governmental entities; and
- awarded to the lowest responsible bidder or on the basis of best value in a manner consistent with General Municipal Law § 103.
Legislative Watch
General Municipal Law §103(16) is currently scheduled to expire on June 30, 2026. Pending legislation, Senate Bill S10326, would create a new framework for cooperative purchasing agreements involving goods, services, and public works. As currently drafted, the bill would allow cooperative purchasing for public works construction only when the contract is competitively bid, publicly advertised, and awarded by a New York political subdivision in full compliance with applicable New York public procurement laws, including General Municipal Law §101, prevailing wage requirements, and craft or trade separation requirements. Unless and until the law changes, Maine-Endwell controls, and §103(16) does not allow piggybacking for public works construction contracts.
If you need further guidance or have any questions on this topic, we are here to help. Please do not hesitate to reach out to discuss your specific situation.
This material has been prepared for general, informational purposes only and is not intended to provide, and should not be relied on for, tax, legal or accounting advice. Should you require any such advice, please contact us directly. The information contained herein does not create, and your review or use of the information does not constitute, an accountant-client relationship.
