State appellate court rules districts cannot use piggybacking for public works contracts

On Board Online • June 8, 2026

By Shubh N. McTague
Staff Counsel

In Lynch v. Bd. of Educ. of the Maine-Endwell CSD, the Appellate Division, Third Department, held that school districts cannot use "piggybacking" to award a public works contract under General Municipal Law (GML) section 103(16) and that such contracts are subject, instead, to competitive bidding.

What is "piggybacking"?

Generally, pursuant to GML section 103(1), purchase contracts over certain monetary thresholds must be competitively bid. Government entities, including school districts, must advertise for sealed bids and award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder in the manner required by law. The requirements of the competitive bidding law are intended to foster competition and guard against favoritism while also ensuring cost efficiencies.

The law also provides for certain exceptions. One of those is the so-called piggybacking provisions of GML 103(16).

As explained by the Third Department, piggybacking allows school districts and other municipalities to forego the formalities of the competitive bidding process when "mak[ing] purchases of apparatus, materials, equipment or supplies, or. . . contract[ing] for services related to the installation, maintenance or repair of apparatus, materials, equipment, and supplies. . [[thereof]."

One of those conditions is that the piggybacking contract was let to the lowest responsible bidder or on the basis of best value, consistent with the provisions of GML 103. To take advantage of this exception, the piggybacking contract has to have been let by the federal government, any of the federal agencies, any state, or any other political subdivision or district. It also must have been awarded to either the lowest responsible bidder or on the basis of best value in a manner consistent with New York law and made available for use by other governmental entities.

Piggybacking contracts from outside New York also must meet certain conditions identified by the state comptroller consistent with GML 103.

The legal issue before the Third Department involved whether a lower court erred when it ruled that the school district improperly used the piggybacking exception for a contract that involved the HVAC portion of the second phase of a multi-year capital improvements project.

Facts of the case

In this case, voters in the district had approved a multi-year, multi-phase $64 million dollar bond to support a capital project for different buildings and facilities within the school district. The first phase of the project was to replace the sewer line and parking lot at the high school. In this first phase, the district hired a certain company through a piggybacking contract that came from the state of Texas instead of going through the competitive bidding process. The cost of the sewer line and parking lot was approximately $2.2 million.

Liking the work, the district sought to use the same company for phase two of the project, which was to renovate the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system at the elementary school. The district sought approval from the State Education Department for the second phase; however, when approval was delayed, the district hired the same company to perform the HVAC work. Once again, the district used piggybacking through the same Texas contract and did not competitively bid the work.

Close to 50% of the HVAC work had been completed at a cost of nearly $4 million when local contractors sued the district and the company in state court. They sought to annul the contract between the district and the company for violating the competitive bidding requirements.

Lower court rules against district

The local contractors' complaint was first considered by a state Supreme Court. It determined that the piggybacking contract at issue violated the competitive bidding law because it involved public works, and public works are subject to competitive bidding.

To reach its conclusion, the court had to define what constitutes "public works," "public works contracts" or "public works projects," after finding no applicable statutory guidance. Ultimately, it defined the terms to mean "construction or repair projects undertaken by municipalities on their infrastructure." The court noted that this was consistent with another provision of the GML regarding specifications for public work.

The court then specifically analyzed GML section 103(16) to determine if piggybacking can be used for public works. It stated that piggybacking was allowed only for "the purchase of specific classes of things." The court said that the law does not identify or include the purchase of public works, public works contracts or public works projects.

Accordingly, the court prohibited the district from using piggybacking for any more public works projects. However, since the project was already significantly underway, it allowed the piggybacking contractor to complete the work.

Ruling by the Appellate Division, Third Department

The district appealed the prohibition on the use of piggybacking for other public works portions of its capital improvement project. NYSSBA, joined by state associations representing superintendents and school business officials, filed an amici curiae (friends of the court) brief in support of the district.

One question involved whether the Legislature intended to allow piggybacking in public works contracts. A different law, GML 101, sets the framework for competitive bidding, and that law expressly mentions public works. But GML 103(16), which deals with piggybacking, contains no such reference.

The Third Department agreed with the lower court that "the omission of language referencing public works contracts from the piggybacking provision [in GML 103] suggests that the Legislature did not intend to allow them to be exempt from competitive bidding."

The court further noted that the Legislature appeared to contemplate that it would only be "used to facilitate procurement in the context of purchase contracts, as opposed to construction and renovation projects like the one at issue."

The decision is binding only on districts within the jurisdiction of the Third Department. That includes 28 counties: Albany, Broome, Chemung, Chenango, Clinton, Columbia, Cortland, Delaware, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Hamilton, Madison, Montgomery, Otsego, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, Schuyler, Sullivan, Tioga, Tompkins, Ulster, St. Lawrence, Warren and Washington.

Because the use of competitive bidding and piggybacking can be complicated, school officials in all parts of the state may want to discuss the implications of this case with counsel, especially if there are planned or current capital projects involving the use or potential use of piggybacking.