ART - Piggybacking On the Law 2012

The document discusses two court cases related to cooperative procurement. In the first case, Sarasota County in Florida piggybacked on a contract by the State of Wisconsin to acquire a zoning and permitting tracking system from a vendor called CSDC Systems, Inc. However, a competing vendor called Accela filed a complaint, alleging violations of the procurement code. The trial court denied Accela's request, but the appellate court reversed the decision, stating that the county had violated the terms of its procurement code by not ensuring that the contract with CSDC was substantially the same as the Wisconsin contract. This case highlights the importance of adhering to procurement codes and ensuring that contracts obtained through cooperative procurement are in line with the local regulations. In the second case, the State of New Jersey utilized new statutory "piggyback" authority to execute a state contract for automobile parts based on a procurement conducted by the city of Charlotte, North Carolina. The court compared the underlying contracts and found that although there were some differences in pricing and terms, the New Jersey contract complied with the state's procurement laws and was deemed to be the most cost-effective method of procurement. This case demonstrates that even if there are minor differences between the original contract and the piggybacked contract, as long as the procurement process is fair and reasonable, it can still be considered compliant with the procurement laws. The document also mentions that some states' statutes explicitly require compliance with their state's procurement laws in cooperative procurements, while others allow ordering from GSA schedules. This highlights the variation in legal requirements across different jurisdictions when it comes to cooperative procurement. Therefore, it is crucial for entities engaging in cooperative procurement to be aware of their unique legal requirements and strive to achieve the objective of achieving cost savings and efficiency while also ensuring compliance with local procurement laws. Additionally, using a competitive process aligned with the objective of fair and reasonable pricing through full and open competition is recommended.