Updated September 7, 2026. New York's Wicks Law debate concerns the benefits and costs of awarding certain public construction trades separately. Whether separate contracts are required depends on the public owner, project, cost and applicable statutory exceptions.
Municipal building projects: the basic thresholds
General Municipal Law § 101 addresses specified building work undertaken by political subdivisions and their districts. Subject to statutory exceptions, the separate-specification requirements apply when the entire project cost exceeds:
- $3 million in New York City's five borough counties;
- $1.5 million in Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester Counties; or
- $500,000 in the other counties.
The specified trades are plumbing and gas fitting; heating, ventilation and air conditioning; and electrical work. The statute provides for separate bidding and awards for these categories. It expressly recognizes exceptions, including the provision in Labor Law § 222. Different rules may apply to a state agency or other public entity, so § 101 should not be treated as a universal description of every public project.
Section 101(5) also addresses sealed subcontractor lists when separate specifications are not required, including public-owner approval of later changes based on a legitimate construction need. Falling below a threshold does not eliminate every procurement requirement.
Why separate contracting remains debated
Supporters emphasize trade-contractor participation and direct competition for specialized work. Critics focus on the owner's coordination burden and the potential for schedule disputes among separate contractors. Those concerns should be evaluated against the actual procurement structure, scope assignments and project-management resources.
What bidders and owners should check
Identify the governing procurement statute and any authorized exception before organizing bid packages. Confirm who coordinates the trades, handles interface work, manages schedule changes and bears responsibility for delays. Review the bid documents together with the proposed contracts, rather than relying on a general description of Wicks Law.
Kushnick Pallaci PLLC assists with public construction contracts and procurement and construction contract review.
This overview focuses on General Municipal Law § 101 and provides general information, not a determination that a particular procurement method is authorized.
Wicks law sounds similar to a law in Washington State where the MEP sub contractors are “Named” at the bid opening. Collusion, Bid Rigging, Kick Backs and other illegal activities aside the intent/effect with the Washington law simply was to address Bid Shopping. Bid shopping in the MEP market was rampant in the 1970 and 80 when the law was put into place. This has curtailed some of the activity but not all and has made bidding MEP more civilized as the low bidder in these sections can have the confidence to be competitive and not have the possibility to be shopped out. The actual nature of the bidding process and the associated contract delivery vehicle is not clear other than it appears more likely to be a Construction Management (CM) process versed a General Contractor At Risk. The difference being the style of putting a project out to bid, one lump sum at a specified hour verses bid packages that are assembled over time and possibly several months. The latter offering to take the rush decision making out of the bid room and move it to a methodical thought process which can be evaluated over time, reducing the biggest factor human error from the process.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me to be nothing more than a multiple prime contracting method that has worked for several years in public construction. The only difference seems to be the Public Agency becomes the General Contractor. Most General Contractors are nothing more than a clearing house for hte subs. Few Gc's do the actual construction which definitelt leads to subcontractor price shopping. Hawaii used to require all subcontractors to quote through the GENERAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION only. Prime would pick up their pricing at the local GCA office. If they did not get a sub bid for some of the work then they must self perform or not be ablle to bid the entire project. Wicks Law, rightly or wronly takes the effective construction manaement away from professionals and puts it in the hands of lesser qualified management indiviuals. TIme will tell whether it is cost effective.
ReplyDeleteMAX MAXWELL
There's probably some advantage to buying a single contract through a general contractor and that is that the GC then carries all the burden and risk for the public contract, particularly as regards schedule delays and their associated costs. Any claim as a result of delay is solely the responsibility of one party (the GC) in the eyes of the public agency and it is up to the GC to unravel the often costly analysis/litigation as to who held who up and what the associated costs and responsibilities were. The perceived pricing advantage of having competition through multiple prime contractors of different trades is probably less than it has ever been because contractors of different trades have been hurting for work for some time and can't afford to bid to a GC with excessive margins - they won't win the work. Further, GCs can't bid the main contracts carrying subcontractor bids that are excessive because it drives up their number and reduces their chance to win the main contract in the first place. Given that good GCs are working for less work with slim margins already and their subcontractors are doing the same, the financial advantage to the public agency of purchasing separate contracts is far outweighed by negating the risk (both operational and financial) they assume by trading with a single source GC. Any purchasing advantage they gain by using multiple primes would almost certainly be eliminated by the cost of discovery and litigation for a single project that goes wrong. Better to leave that cost with the GC (who is after all the expert in the field) - it is this risk assumed that makes the GC something that is substantially more than a 'clearing house for the subs' and why the backing of a quality surety is often required of the GC.
ReplyDelete