Public Bidding 101: Emergency Bidding

Emergency contracting for repairs, maintenance, and public safety are a routine occurrence with public owners across the Commonwealth. A building in danger of collapse needs to be torn down on an immediate basis to ensure public safety. A system fails in a public building requiring an emergency repair to restore the system to proper working order. A roadway or bridge is washed out during a storm mandating immediate action to restore access for the public and emergency vehicles. In such dire situations, can a public owner bypass the normal rules of competitive bidding and award a contract an expedited basis? The answer is yes, with some caveats.

Where an emergency threatens the health, welfare, or safety of the citizenry, and does not permit a delay in response, a public owner can dispense with the formal rules of public bidding such as timing of award and public notice. On the other hand, even in an emergency, the public owner cannot simply award a contract without competition. An emergency may relax the requirement for notice and advertising, but it doesn’t eliminate competition. After all, if a public owner can invite pricing from one contractor in an emergency, there is usually no good reason why it can’t also invite pricing from other contractors at the same time. Read more

Oral Promise To Pay Subcontractor Ruled Enforceable Against School District

In a departure from the usual rule, but not surprising given the facts of the case, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently enforced a subcontractor’s claim for payment against a public owner.

In 2009, West Allegheny School District terminated Flaherty Mechanical Contractors, LLC, the prime contractor on a school alterations project, for failure to pay various subcontractors. After the termination, to prevent further delay, the school district asked F. Zacherl, Inc., the sheet metal subcontractor, to return to the project and complete the work remaining under its subcontract with Flaherty.

Zacherl orally agreed with school district, provided it was paid its then outstanding invoices. These invoices were paid, and Zacherl completed its work, but the school district made no further payments for either the work Zacherl had performed for Flaherty or the work Zacherl performed for the school district. Zacherl sued Flaherty’s surety and the school district for payment. The trial found in favor of Zacherl, with the surety liable for payment for Zacherl’s work for Flaherty, and the school district liable for Zacherl’s work for the school district. The school district appealed. Read more

Posted on July 7, 2016 by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Court Decisions, Public School Code Comments Off

No-Bid Busing Contracts Cost School Districts An Extra $53.7 Million Over State Reimbursement

According to recent audits conducted by the Pa. Department of the Auditor General, Pennsylvania school districts spent at least $53.7 million in excess of the state’s transportation reimbursement formula through the use of no-bid busing contracts.

The conclusion of the Auditor General was based on audits of about 450 of the state’s 500 public school districts. As a result, Auditor General Eugene DePasquale called on the Pa. General Assembly to mandate competitive bidding for such transportation services, saying:

To get the best possible price and ensure transparency for taxpayers, student transportation contracts should be re-bid every time they are up for renewal. I’m calling on the General Assembly to enact legislation to ensure school districts are getting the best possible price by requiring them to seek competitive bids for transportation services. Amending the Public School Code to require schools to competitively bid transportation services will improve transparency and could put more money in our classrooms.

The Auditor General press release issued on May 12, 2016, can be found here. A PennLive story on the Auditor General’s findings can be found here.

Posted on June 21, 2016 by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Com. of Pa., Public School Code Comments Off

Extra Work Claim Against School District Does Not Require Written Change Order Or Adherence To Section 508 Of Public School Code

Long-standing precedent in Pennsylvania required a contractor’s change order claim against a public entity to be supported by a written change order and strict adherence to the contract requirements and any applicable public law.

For claims against school districts, all of that changed in 2007 with the Commonwealth Court’s decision in James Corp. v. North Allegheny School District, 938 A.2d 474 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007). In James Corp. the Commonwealth Court allowed an extra work claim in the absence of a formal written change order and held that Section 508 of the Public School Code of 1949 (requiring affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of a school board for contracts) did not bar the claim.

And now the decision in James Corp. has been re-affirmed by the Commonwealth Court. On March 6, 2015, the Commonwealth Court issued a formal opinion in East Coast Paving & Sealcoating, Inc., v. North Allegheny School District, a case involving a change order claim based on a directive to perform work without a formal written change order, and cited its decision in James Corp. as binding precedent. In East Coast Paving, the Commonwealth Court stated:

With respect to the School District’s argument that a change order was a necessary condition to payment, our holding in James Corp. v. North Allegheny School District, 938 A.2d 474 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007), is binding precedent. Notably, it involved the School District as the defendant and the very same contract language invoked here by the School District.

The Commonwealth Court also rejected the school district’s argument that Section 508 was an insurmountable obstacle to the contractor’s extra work claim:

In its second issue, the School District argues that the trial court erred in concluding that the School District authorized East Coast to do the soft spot repair work. The School District contends that a change to a contract “must be approved by affirmative vote of the school board members and the approv[al] must be reflected in the minutes or record as provided by Section 508 of the Public School Code, 24 P.S. § 5–508.” School District Brief at 15. According to the School District, the School Board did not approve the soft spot repair work.

The School District made this argument in James, and we rejected it there. We explained:

We reject [the School District’s] argument [that] Section 508 of The Public School Code of 1929, Act of March 10, 1929, P.L. 30, as amended, 24 P.S. §§ 5–508 (requiring school board approval for increases or decreased to indebtedness), bars [the contractor’s] claim for payment of additional work. Testimony established [the School District] considered the work part of the contract; thus, further school board approval was unnecessary.

James, 938 A.2d at 478 n.12. Moreover, we explained:

[The School District], having directed [the contractor] to perform the additional work asserting it was required by contract, cannot now disavow liability for costs incurred by claiming [the contractor] did not have written authorization [from the School Board].

Id. at 487.

The record established that the School District required East Coast to do the soft spot repair work. The School District does not argue that the soft spot repairs were not necessary. As in James, it was not necessary for the School Board to approve, specifically, the soft spot repair work. The School Board approved the paving project and its completion by East Coast, and that is all that was required by Section 508.

Thus, at least for the time being, and at least with respect to contractor claims against school districts in Pennsylvania, a contractor does not need a formal, written change order in order to pursue a claim for extra work performed at the direction of an official or employee of the school district. Moreover, Section 508 of the Public School Code is not a legal impediment to these claims. This is more than welcome news for contractors doing business with school districts across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Of course, contractors are advised to consult with experienced counsel when faced with these types of claims.

The Commonwealth Court decision in East Coast Paving can be found here.