In Re New Jersey State Contract
28 A.3d 816
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- Director awarded AutoZone contract under cooperative purchasing N.J.S.A. 52:34-6.2 for auto parts.
- Appellants Beyer Brothers, PNCFLM, Bob Novick Chevrolet and NJ Coalition of Automotive Retailers challenge the award.
- Charlotte, via MICPA with U.S. Communities, conducted the underlying master agreement bidding.
- AutoZone offered Tier 4 pricing with 20% discount, shipping included; NJ contract terms included delivery timelines.
- Director’s decision found to be within statute; appellants appealed asserting lack of standing and improper process.
- Court initially held appellants have standing and remanded for findings; later clarified notice and affirmed award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do appellants have standing to challenge the award? | Appellants have a direct financial interest. | Standing limited to bidders/taxpayers; cooperation process excludes current vendors. | Appellants have standing to challenge. |
| Did the Director properly notify current/prospective bidders about cooperative purchasing? | Notice must be given before using cooperative process to allow timely challenges. | Notice adequacy exists; process allows registration; no entitlement to bid lists. | Notice requirement implemented; timely challenges possible. |
| Did the Director exceed authority by adopting an AutoZone contract via a separate negotiation rather than the Master Agreement? | Terms diverged (free delivery, in-house store, 20% discount) from Master Agreement. | Differences permissible; deviations align with cost-effectiveness; delivery terms allowed. | Director acted within authority; contract is permissible post-bid modification. |
| Was Charlotte's RFP process (Master Agreement) properly conducted under 52:34-6.2 and 52:34-12? | Procurement not truly competitive; limited bidders; insufficient notice. | Public notice via internet/newspaper; compliance with statute; no requirement for nationwide ad. | Process compliant; not every detail defined by statute requires formal national advertising. |
| Are the Director's post-award pricing/terms consistent with Master Agreement requirements? | Pricing must reflect Master Agreement terms for all participating entities. | Terms may be more favorable or tailored to state needs; same price framework applied. | Pricing terms consistent with cooperative framework and most cost-effective outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crescent Park Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Equities Corp. of N.Y., 58 N.J. 98 (1971) (standing and public interest considerations in litigation)
- Jen Elec., Inc. v. County of Essex, 197 N.J. 627 (2009) (standing to challenge bid specifications and awards)
- Palamar Construction, Inc. v. Township of Pennsauken, 196 N.J. Super. 241 (App.Div. 1983) (post-bid modifications to awarded contracts permissible)
- Greenberg v. Fornicola, 37 N.J. 1 (1962) (bargaining for needed changes within bidding context)
- In re Jasper Seating Co., 406 N.J. Super. 213 (App.Div. 2009) (standard of review and standing in procurement appeals)