On May 21, 2026, the Third Department issued a noteworthy decision affecting public procurement in New York. In Matter of Daniel J. Lynch, Inc. v. Board of Education of the MaineEndwell Central School District, the court held that school districts may not use “piggybacking” contracts, authorized by General Municipal Law (“GML”) § 103(16), to avoid competitive bidding for construction, alteration or repair of public works. In particular, the court held that cooperative purchasing programs from other states or the federal government, which may be used to purchase services “related to the installation, maintenance or repair of apparatus, materials, equipment, and supplies”, does not apply to construction or repair of public buildings or other public infrastructure. Instead, such work remains generally subject to New York’s competitive bidding requirements.

Importantly, the statute itself has not changed. Rather, the Lynch decision narrows the previously accepted interpretation of GML § 103(16) and clarifies that the statute applies to purchases of goods and certain related services, not public works construction projects.

What Is Piggybacking?

“Piggybacking” refers to a public owner’s procurement of goods or services through a contract that has already been competitively procured by another out-of-state governmental entity instead of conducting its own bidding process or using a New York State Office of General Services (“OGS”)-administered cooperative contract. For years, public owners have used piggybacking purchasing programs from other states, such as TIPS, Sourcewell, and Keystone Purchasing Network, to purchase equipment, technology, vehicles, and other commodities.

The Lynch Case

The dispute arose from a multi-phase capital improvement project undertaken by the Maine-Endwell Central School District. Rather than competitively bidding an HVAC renovation project, the district sought to procure the work through TIPS. The project involved not only HVAC equipment, but also demolition, asbestos abatement, and other constructionrelated activities. Local contractors challenged the award, claiming that the district improperly bypassed New York’s competitive bidding law. The court agreed, holding that the school district could not use GML § 103(16) to award the HVAC contract, because the project constituted a public works construction project that was subject to competitive bidding requirements.

The court concluded that GML § 103(16) applies only to procurement in the context of purchase contracts “related to the installation, maintenance or repair of apparatus, materials, equipment, and supplies”, as opposed to construction contracts. Because the statute does not mention public works contracts, the court held that public construction projects remain subject to the competitive bidding requirements of GML Article 5-A. In reaching that conclusion, the court relied on both the language of the statute and its legislative history, noting that the Legislature described the 2012 enactment as authorizing cooperative purchasing, not an alternative method for awarding construction contracts.

A Departure from Prior Guidance

The Lynch decision is noteworthy because it departs from a prior determination by the Commissioner of Education in Appeal of Crisorio, where piggybacking was upheld in connection with portions of a school capital project. Public owners frequently cited that decision as support for the broader use of piggybacking on construction-related projects. Prior to Lynch, many contractors viewed cooperative purchasing programs as placing certain public projects beyond the reach of the traditional bidding marketplace. The Lynch decision may therefore increase opportunities for local contractors to compete for public construction work that otherwise may have been procured through non-OGS cooperative purchasing arrangements.

What Does This Mean for Contractors?

First, the decision may result in more public construction work being returned to the traditional competitive bidding marketplace. Public owners now have fewer opportunities to procure construction projects through cooperative purchasing arrangements under GML § 103(16), which may increase bidding opportunities for contractors. Second, contractors should expect greater scrutiny of procurement methods. One of the key lessons from Lynch – and from OGS’s interpretation of the cooperative contracting program it administers within the state – is that there is a distinction between purchasing apparatus, materials, equipment and supplies and procuring construction services. Projects involving substantial construction, renovation, demolition, or alteration of public facilities are more likely to be treated as public works contracts subject to competitive bidding requirements.

Third, contractors may see an increase in “dual-track” procurements. Under guidance issued after Lynch, a public owner may still purchase equipment through a cooperative purchasing contract, while separately competitively bidding the associated construction work. As a result, equipment purchases and construction services may increasingly be procured under separate contracts, particularly where the equipment can be purchased and installed under an OGS-administered cooperative contract. Finally, the case serves as a reminder that procurement decisions may be challenged in court. If a project that should have been competitively bid is instead awarded through a piggybacking arrangement, disappointed bidders may challenge the award through an Article 78 proceeding or other litigation. Such challenges can delay projects, increase costs, and, in some circumstances, result in the contract being invalidated. Where the contract is invalidated, the New York Court of Appeals in Jered Construction Corp. v. New York City Transit Authority, has held that the contractor may be required to forfeit any payment for work performed up to that point. Therefore, contractors should carefully evaluate the basis for any public contract awarded through a cooperative purchasing arrangement, particularly where the scope of work extends beyond the furnishing and installation of equipment and resembles a traditional construction project.

Looking Ahead and the New York State Education Department’s Guidance

Following Lynch, the New York State Education Department issued guidance advising school districts that GML § 103(16) may no longer be used for future public works contracts, construction projects, or building infrastructure improvements. The guidance confirms that piggybacking remains available for purchases of apparatus, materials, equipment, supplies, and services directly related to those items. The guidance also confirms that the decision is directed at the use of GML § 103(16) for public works and does not eliminate other lawful procurement methods.

In particular, the Lynch decision does not affect the authority of public entities to purchase goods and services through contracts established by the OGS pursuant to General Municipal Law § 104 and State Finance Law § 163. Indeed, the distinction between procurement and construction drawn by the Third Department is largely consistent with OGS’s longstanding procurement framework. OGS has historically delineated between installation, repair or replacement of certain building-related systems – which may be purchased through OGS-administered cooperative contracts – and construction, repair or replacement of a building and its primary MEP elements, which generally may not. As a result, school districts and other public owners may continue to utilize OGS contracts where otherwise authorized by law.

The Lynch decision does not eliminate piggybacking in New York. What the decision makes clear, however, is that piggybacking is a limited exception to the competitive bidding statutes and not a substitute for competitive bidding on public works construction projects. For New York contractors, the decision reinforces a long-standing principle of public procurement law: public construction contracts should generally be awarded through open and competitive bidding under New York law. Whether the Court of Appeals or Legislature ultimately revisits the issue remains to be seen. For now, however, Lynch signals a return to New York’s traditional competitive bidding framework and may create new opportunities for contractors to compete for public construction projects that previously could have been awarded through cooperative purchasing programs.

This article was authored by associate Denice Cioara, partner Tony Adams, and partner Dan Adams with Adams Leclair, LLP.

Tony Adams

Dan Adams

Denice Cioara