Opinion
February 5, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The determination by the respondent City of Long Beach rejecting the bid package submitted by the petitioner (which failed to include a detailed declaration of the bidder's qualifications including, inter alia, statements as to the bidding firm's experience and performance history, current and recently completed contracts and the amounts thereof, and bank references) on the basis that it substantially deviated from bid specifications, was supported by a rational basis and, hence, will not be disturbed on review (see, Matter of A S Transp. Co. v County of Nassau, 154 A.D.2d 456; Le Cesse Bros. Contr. v Town Bd., 62 A.D.2d 28, affd 46 N.Y.2d 960, on opn at App. Div.; Matter of C.K. Rehner, Inc. v City of New York, 106 A.D.2d 268).
Contrary to the petitioner's claim, in view of the significance of the omission from its bid package, the municipality could not, and in fact, did not, waive the defect as a "mere irregularity" (see, Matter of Varsity Tr. v Board of Educ., 130 A.D.2d 581, 582; Le Cesse Bros. Contr. v Town Bd., supra).
Finally, we find no merit to the petitioner's claim of collusion. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.