Skip to main content

Search Google Appliance

Search Google Appliance

Decision No. 14,152

Appeal of WNI SALES from action of the Board of Review of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York regarding a contract award.

Decision No. 14,152

(June 29, 1999)

Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, attorney for respondent, Robert J. Howard, Esq., of counsel

MILLS, Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals from a hearing conducted by the Board of Review of the New York City Board of Education ("Board of Review" or "respondent") to determine whether petitioner is a responsible vendor. The appeal must be dismissed.

Pursuant to a bid solicitation, the New York City Board of Education ("BOE") awarded a contract to petitioner, a computer software vendor, to provide various Lotus brand microcomputer software to the BOE. By its terms, the contract expired on July 30, 1997. After the BOE experienced problems with petitioner’s performance under the contract, its Office of Purchasing Management asked Arthur H. Avedon, the Board of Review’s Chief Administrator, in a memorandum dated January 23, 1998, to convene the Board of Review to determine whether petitioner was a non-responsible vendor. By letter dated April 24, 1998, Mr. Avedon notified petitioner that respondent would conduct a hearing on May 6, 1998 to determine whether petitioner was a non-responsible vendor. A copy of the charges that the Board of Review would consider during the hearing accompanied the letter. Following several adjournments, respondent convened the hearing on September 16, 1998. Petitioner appeared without counsel. Several BOE employees testified about the problems they experienced with petitioner’s performance under the contract. This appeal ensued.

As of the date of respondent’s answer, the Board of Review had not rendered a determination on the issue of petitioner’s responsibility.

Petitioner challenges several rulings made by the Board of Review during the hearing. For relief, petitioner requests, among other things, that I dismiss the charges pending against it.

Respondent contends that the Board of Review has acted properly, and also claims, among other things, that the appeal is premature.

It is well established that I will not render advisory opinions or decide issues that have not yet become justiciable (Appeal of Jacobson, 37 Ed Dept Rep 75, Decision No. 13,808; Appeal of Sullivan, 23 id. 264, Decision No. 11,212). At the time petitioner commenced this appeal, the Board of Review had not issued a determination as to petitioner’s responsibility as a vendor. Thus, petitioner was not aggrieved by any action of the Board of Review (see, Appeal of St. Cyr, 27 Ed Dept Rep 351, Decision No. 11,972; Matter of Appeal of a Handicapped Child, 20 Ed Dept 513, Decision No. 10,500). Accordingly, petitioner’s attempt to appeal rulings made by the Board of Review during the hearing is premature and warrants dismissal of this appeal.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE