GEORGE H. LARGE, for the Appellant. The Petitioner in this case is Frederick L. Johnson, a citizen and resident of Readington Township, Hunterdon County. Appeal is taken because of the action of the Board of Education in awarding to C. J. Hauck a contract to transport school children to the Flemington High School for $993.50, which award is claimed to be not in full accordance with an advertisement for proposals. The advertisement reads as follows: "The Board of Education of Readington Township will receive bids for transportation of scholars to Flemington High School as follows: Starting at the Pleasant Run store, thence to Stanton store, return to macadam road, thence to Flemington High School and returning by same route at close of school." The Appellant resides at Stanton and has children to be transported. No question is raised by him in regard to the award of the contract to the lowest bidder. The Appellant claims that instead of starting at Pleasant Run and thence proceeding to Stanton and from Stanton returning to the main road to Flemington as provided in the advertisement, the contract was let to start at Stanton and proceed to Pleasant Run, returning to the main road to Flemington. The claim made by the Appellant is that whereas there is one child near the Pleasant Run store, the advertised starting point, there are six at Stanton and vicinity. The distance from Stanton to Pleasant Run store is about three miles and the point of intersection with the main road to Flemington is about half way. Thus, there would be necessity for six children to pass over one and a half miles each way, making a ride of three miles for them, whereas if the vehicle started at Pleasant Run store as advertised there would be one child only who would have to ride a distance of three miles. In former years the route of travel started at the Pleasant Run store. This year the lowest bidder, bidding about $200 less than any other bidder, lives in the vicinity of Stanton. The Board of Education claims because of the saving of some $200 the route was changed only as to the point of starting. The question therefore involved is, shall the Board of Education compel the lowest bidder to leave his home at Stanton, traverse the three miles to Pleasant Run for the one child and with it return to Stanton for the six who live in the vicinity of Stanton? This, of course, would not be acceptable to Mr. Hauck and the contract would have to be awarded to the next lowest bidder, Clarence Cole, whose proposal was $200 more than that of Mr. Hauck. It does not appear that the Board was in any way prejudiced in awarding the contract to the lowest bidder and permitting him to begin his transportation at Stanton instead of at Pleasant Run. Transportation is costly at best. It seems to me therefore that the Board of Education exercised sound judgment in saving to the school district some $200 in the matter of the transportation of seven children. The Board of Education claims that it is not bound by the law to advertise for proposals at all; that it may reject all bids offered and award the contract without advertisement. This is quite true. All Boards of Education acting under Article VII of the school law are at liberty to advertise, or not, as they choose. Having advertised, however, a Board of Education ought to conform as nearly as possible in the award of the contract to the conditions of the advertisement. In this case the route was not changed in awarding the contract; the only change made was the point of starting the vehicle. This, in my judgment, is not a material matter. I, therefore, conclude that the business judgment of the Board of Education cannot in this case be interfered with. The appeal is dismissed. October 22, 1918. |