|
Negotiation Rules Under Local Public Contracts Law
for Award of Contracts Without Public Bidding
by Megan M. Schwartz
In certain instances, the Local Public
Contracts Law grants municipalities
the ability to award contracts for
goods and services without adhering
to all the requirements of public
bidding. One specific example
includes the negotiation process found
in N.J.S.A. 40A:11-5(3). Particular
elements of the public bidding process
are still required in connection with
the negotiation process, including
public advertising and award by the
governing body. As explained below,
the negotiation process is an
important and flexible tool for
municipalities and other contracting
units in procuring needed goods and
services without having to adhere to
all the requirements of public bidding.
Criteria for Negotiation
Any contract, the amount of which
exceeds the bid threshold (currently
$21,000), may be negotiated and
awarded by the governing body if the
following criteria are met: requests for
bids have been advertised on two
occasions and
(a) No bids have been received on
both occasions in response to
the advertisement; or
(b) The governing body has
rejected such bids on two
occasions because it has deter-
mined that [the bids] are not
reasonable as to price, on the
basis of cost estimates prepared
for or by the [contracting unit’s]
contracting agent prior to the
advertising therefore, or [the
bids] have not been indepen-
dently arrived at in open
competition; or
(c) On one occasion no bids were
received pursuant to (a) and
on one occasion all bids were
rejected pursuant to (b), in
whatever sequence.
After a municipality or other
contracting unit has twice advertised
for and rejected bids in accordance
with the above, the contracting unit
will be able to negotiate a contract and
may award such contract for goods
and/or services upon a two-thirds
affirmative vote of the authorized
membership of the governing body.
However, such award may only be
made if the following three conditions
are met.
Award Without Public
Bidding
First, the governing body may
award the contract provided that the
contracting unit’s contracting agent
has first made a reasonable effort to
determine that the same or equivalent
goods or services, at a cost which is
lower than the negotiated price, are
not available from an agency or
authority of the United States, the
State of New Jersey, the county wherein
the contracting unit is located or some
other municipality in close proximity.
The contracting agent should docu-
ment such efforts described above in
the form of a memo to the file and to
the governing body making the award.
Second, an award may only be
made if the terms, conditions, restric-
tions and specifications set forth in the
negotiated contract are not substantially
different from those which were the
subject of the initial advertisements for
competitive bidding.
Finally, any minor amendment or
modification of any of the terms,
conditions, restrictions and specifica-
tions, which were the subject of
competitive bidding, must be stated
in the resolution of award. However,
if after the second advertisement, the
bids received are rejected as unreason-
able in price, the contracting agent
shall notify each responsible bidder
submitting bids on the second
occasion of the contracting unit’s
intention to negotiate. In other words,
after the contracting unit’s second
unsuccessful attempt to procure the
needed goods and/or services, each
bidder must receive notice of its
intention to negotiate.
Thereafter, each bidder must be
afforded a reasonable opportunity to
negotiate. The governing body shall
not award such contract unless the
negotiated price is lower than the lowest
rejected bid price submitted on the
second occasion by a responsible bidder,
is the lowest negotiated price offered by
any responsible bidder, and is a reasonable
price for such goods or services.
Accordingly, the contracting unit should
follow this process and document the
notice submitted to each bidder on the
second occasion of its intention to
negotiate.
New Jersey courts have noted the
utility of the negotiation process to
achieve the lowest responsible price
for a municipality and/or other local
contracting unit. The Appellate Division
has noted that where negotiation is
permissible under the above-described
statute, the contracting unit has great
flexibility and may use any conceivable
business method to accomplish the goal
of obtaining the lowest available price.
Specifically, in a case entitled Interstate
Waste Removal Co., Inc. v. Board of
Com’rs, the court found:
There is no magic or uniform
procedure which must be utilized.
So long as it is structured to
accomplish the purpose of the
legislation, namely, to achieve the
lowest available price from a
responsible bidder, and the former
bidders are given an opportunity
to participate, the municipal
officials have fully complied with
their statutory duty.
Again, as described above, under no
circumstances can award be made to a
vendor at a price that is higher than the
lowest rejected bid submitted on the
second occasion. Accordingly,
municipalities and local contracting
units should negotiate the award of
contracts for goods and/or services in
the manner described above.
Municipalities and other contracting
units armed with the above knowledge
can ensure they are administering the
negotiation process in accordance with
statutory requirements. The attorneys
in Hill Wallack LLP’s Administrative
Law/Government Procurement and
Municipal Law Practice Groups are
experienced and knowledgeable in
representing municipalities and other
contracting units concerning compliance
issues.
Megan M. Schwartz is an associate
in the Administrative Law/Government
Procurement Practice Group
of Hill Wallack LLP. She concentrates
her practice in Administrative Law
including Public Procurement with a
particular emphasis on administrative,
environmental and regulatory compliance.
|