Justice Arthur Engoron
New York City’s Department of Education issued a request for bids (RFB) in 2006 to transport by bus pre-kindergarten and early intervention students, previously overseen by the Department of Transportation. Vendors began this Article 78 proceeding arguing deficiencies in the requests, including that they failed to provide the location of the subject students’ residences and were too vague. That litigation was resolved by the Court of Appeals. The city issued new RFBs in 2011, and vendors made requests for information and cited alleged errors in the solicitation, which were corrected, and provided answers. Vendors now challenged two aspects of the subject solicitationerroneous and misleading data in specifications and failure to include the session time each student would be attending at schools. The court stated the Court of Appeals sustained RFBs similar to the ones at issue, and the prior decision was controlling. It noted even petitioners’ strongest argument was unavailing, noting the city cannot provide what it does not haveindividual session times. The court stated “litigation cannot be conducted seriatim, with a new case commenced every time the non-prevailing party thinks of something else that it wants to say.”
