Opinion
December 23, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J.
Present — Balio, J.P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in setting aside respondent's determination that petitioner was not the lowest responsible bidder pursuant to General Municipal Law § 103 (1). We conclude that respondent had a rational basis to reject petitioner's bid. The purpose of that statute is to encourage honest competition among bidders in order to obtain the best work at the lowest possible price, and to guard against favoritism, improvidence, extravagance, fraud, and corruption (Matter of Construction Contrs. Assn. v Board of Trustees, 192 A.D.2d 265, 267, citing General Municipal Law § 100-a; Associated Bldrs. Contrs. v City of Rochester, 67 N.Y.2d 854, 855). In exercising its statutory responsibility, respondent was authorized to investigate the background of the bidder and consider its skill, judgment, integrity, responsibility, and reliability (see, Matter of LaCorte Elec. Constr. Maintenance v County of Rensselaer, 195 A.D.2d 923, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 660; Matter of Positive Transp. v City of New York Dept. of Transp., 183 A.D.2d 660, 661; Matter of Schiavone Constr. Co. v Larocca, 117 A.D.2d 440, 443, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 610; 1990 Opns St Comp No. 90-48). Respondent's discretion to determine what criteria to consider is limited only by the requirements that the criteria be rational and that reliance on those criteria be essential to the good of the taxpayers, the intended beneficiaries of General Municipal Law § 103 (1) (see, Matter of Construction Contrs. Assn. v Board of Trustees, supra, at 267-269; see also, Matter of Conduit Found. Corp. v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 66 N.Y.2d 144, 148-149; Gerzof v Sweeney, 16 N.Y.2d 206, 211-212).
In our view, respondent rationally relied on petitioner's unresponsiveness, hostility, and lack of cooperation in response to respondent's repeated requests for information. Moreover, because the information sought by respondent bore directly on petitioner's qualifications, skill and ability to carry out the project, the failure of petitioner to respond adequately to those inquiries also bore on those criteria, as well as petitioner's reliability, accountability, and judgment, all permissible criteria under the statute.
We have considered the parties' remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.