Updated October 2026
Public entities in New York frequently use cooperative purchasing (often called “piggybacking”) to save time and reduce administrative burden. Piggybacking allows one public entity to use another contract already awarded by another governmental entity rather than conduct a separate procurement. Although this can save time and expense, 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 it clear that New York’s piggybacking statute does not authorize public owners to bypass competitive bidding for public works construction.
Maine-Endwell Clarifies Limits on Piggybacking
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, unless another statutory exception applies. 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 underlying contract was properly awarded and made available for use by other governmental entities.
In Maine-Endwell, the Third Department agreed that the district had improperly avoided the competitive bidding process required for public works. The court emphasized that §103(16) does not refer to public works contracts, even though §103(1) does. The court viewed that omission as intentional and concluded that the Legislature intended piggybacking to reach purchase contracts and related services, but not construction and renovation projects. Maine-Endwell is the current Appellate Division authority on §103(16).
Project Scope Determines Eligibility
The court’s analysis focuses on the scope of the work, not the procurement label. The project at issue was not a simple equipment buy – it involved demolition, asbestos abatement, and interior and exterior construction, which the court treated as a construction and renovation project rather than a purchase with incidental installation. If a project is public works construction in substance, it cannot be piggybacked under §103(16), regardless of how the procurement is characterized. Where 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.
The distinction matters most for HVAC work. A comprehensive HVAC construction or system-renovation project – one that involves demolition, abatement, structural work, or extensive trade labor – is a public works project and cannot be piggybacked. By contrast, a genuine purchase of HVAC equipment, accompanied by installation that is directly related to and incidental to that equipment, can remain eligible under §103(16) when the statutory conditions are met. The key question is whether the contract is primarily an equipment purchase or a construction project.
What Can & Cannot Be Procured Through Piggybacking
Still eligible for piggybacking under General Municipal Law §103(16), where the statutory conditions are met:
- Apparatus, materials, equipment, or supplies
- Installation, maintenance, or repair services, so long as they are 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 §103(16):
- Public works construction contracts
- Renovation or capital improvement projects where the work is construction in substance
- Comprehensive HVAC construction and major system renovations
- Demolition, facility construction, site work, sewer work, parking lot construction, and similar public works
Key Requirements for a Valid Piggyback Contract
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.
If the underlying contract was awarded on a best-value basis, a purchasing entity outside New York City must first have authorized best-value purchasing by local law, or, for a school district, BOCES, or district corporation, by rule, regulation, or resolution. Before relying on a cooperative contract, public owners should retain the underlying contract, document why it qualifies, and prepare a cost-benefit analysis.
Key Takeaways for School Districts & BOCES
The New York State Education Department issued guidance on July 17, 2026, implementing Maine-Endwell for school-district and BOCES capital projects. Going forward, districts may not use §103(16) for public-works contracts, construction projects, or building-infrastructure improvements.
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.
