Issue RFP for Water & Sewer Operator services

GML §103 requires competitive bidding for contracts above threshold dollar amounts, but professional services (those requiring special expertise or judgment) are generally exempt and may be procured by RFP. However, the resolution does not characterize the anticipated contract value or confirm that the Village's existing procurement policy authorizes an RFP as the selected method. Counsel should confirm that O&M services for water and wastewater facilities qualify as 'professional services' under applicable case law and the Village's own procurement policy, and that the RFP structure will satisfy any applicable GML §103 threshold analysis. Consider also whether the resulting contract, once awarded, will require a separate Board resolution and whether it will trigger any public hearing requirements under Village Law.

Operation and maintenance contracts for water and wastewater facilities are often structured as multi-year agreements. Village Law and GML provisions may impose conditions on the term and renewal structure of such contracts. The resolution authorizes only the issuance of the RFP, but trustees should be aware that the resulting contract award will itself require separate Board action, and if the contract extends beyond one year, it may implicate Village Law §1-112 (multi-year contracts) or related provisions. Counsel should be consulted before the RFP specifies a contract term to ensure the Village is not inadvertently committing to a structure it lacks authority to adopt.

New York State Department of Health and Department of Environmental Conservation each maintain regulatory oversight over public water supply and wastewater treatment operations, respectively. Contracting with a private operator may require notification to or approval from these agencies, or may impose licensure requirements on the operator. The resolution does not reference these regulatory dimensions. While this does not affect the validity of the RFP authorization itself, trustees may wish to ensure that the RFP documents reflect applicable state regulatory requirements so that the resulting contract is compliant from the outset.

OSC's 'Seeking Competition in Procurement' guide notes that 'the governing board is responsible for adopting policies that describe its goals for procurements, including formal procurement policies and procedures that govern the acquisition of goods and services not required by law to be competitively bid.' The resolution does not reference the Village's existing procurement policy or confirm that the RFP will be conducted in conformance with it. Trustees should confirm that the Village's procurement policy addresses RFP procedures for professional services, including evaluation criteria, scoring, documentation of the selection rationale, and conflict-of-interest review, before the RFP is issued.

OSC's procurement guide includes a dedicated section on 'Ethics and Conflicts of Interest,' noting that the governing board is responsible for adopting a code of ethics that addresses ethical behavior in the procurement process. For a contract of this significance—covering core Village infrastructure—trustees may wish to confirm that the RFP evaluation process includes documented conflict-of-interest disclosures from all evaluators, and that the Village's code of ethics (GML §806) has been communicated to those involved in the selection.

The motion was recorded as unanimous with mover and seconder identified, which satisfies basic procedural requirements. However, for a resolution authorizing the outsourcing of core municipal infrastructure operations, some recorded discussion of the basis for the decision—such as the scope of services, anticipated term, budget implications, or selection criteria—would strengthen the deliberative record and reduce exposure to challenge. This is a best-practice concern rather than a procedural defect.