Krapf School Bus v. Board of Education of the Township of Frankford, Sussex County, 4/15/26 (#131-26)

131-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 16131-25
Agency Dkt. No. 272-8/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Krapf School Bus,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Frankford,
Sussex County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
have been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that the
Frankford Board of Education properly awarded its transportation contract to the lowest responsive
and responsible bidder.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition
of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	April 15, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	April 15, 2026
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1. Under
N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date of mailing
of this decision.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16131-25
AGENCY DKT. 272-8/25
KRAPF SCHOOL BUS,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP
OF FRANKFORD, SUSSEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
Richard C. Kelly, Esq., appearing for petitioner
Patrick F. Carrigg, Esq., (Lenox Law Firm) appearing for respondent
Record Closed: December 30, 2025 	Decided: February 9, 2026
BEFORE AURELIO VINCITORE, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 29, 2025, First Student, Inc., submitted a bid for student transportation that
did not include a Chapter 271 Political Contribution Disclosure Form (Form 271). 	First

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16131-25
2
Student, Inc., however, submitted the form more than ten days before it was awarded the
contract. Does the failure to include Form 271 render its bid non-responsive? No. Under
N.J.S.A. 19:44-20.26, a successful bidder may submit Form 271 ten days before entering
into a contract.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On 	July 	15, 	2025, 	respondent, 	Frankford 	Township 	Board 	of 	Education
(Frankford), 	publicly 	advertised 	the 	solicitation 	of 	sealed 	bids 	to 	provide 	student
transportation services to and from school for the 2025-2026 school year.
On July 29, 2025, Frankford opened the bids and announced that First Student,
Inc. (First Student) was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.
On August 15, 2025, petitioner, Krapf School Bus, the second lowest responsive
and responsible bidder, filed an appeal with the Department of Education, Office of
Controversies and Disputes.
On August 25, 2025, Frankford awarded the contract to First Student.
On September 16, 2025, the Department of Education transmitted the appeal to
the Office of Administrative Law as a contested case under the Administrative Procedure
Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15, and the act establishing the OAL, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -
23, for a hearing under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to
-21.6.
On October 21, 2025, the parties appeared for a pre-hearing teleconference and
requested a decision in this case through a motion for summary decision.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16131-25
3
On November 25, 2025, Krapf filed its motion for summary decision. On December
19, 2025, Frankford BOE filed its opposition to Krapf’s motion for summary decision and
its cross-motion for summary decision. On December 30, 2025, Krapf filed its response.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the documents submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion
for summary decision, I FIND the following as FACT for purposes of this motion only:
1. 	On July 15, 2025, Frankford BOE publicly advertised a solicitation seeking sealed
bids for student transportation services for school year 2025-2026.
2. 	On July 29, 2025, Frankford received three bids in response to the bid solicitation,
opened those bids, and read them out loud at the board of education meeting. The
parties were also given the opportunity to inspect the bids that were submitted.
3. 	First Student was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. 	First Student,
however, did not submit Form 271 with its bid. 	Form 271 is the form that lists all
political contributions.
4. 	Krapf was the second lowest responsive and responsible bidder and did include
Form 271 with its bid package.
5. 	On August 25, 2025, more than ten days before Frankford awarded the student
transportation contract to First Student, Inc., First Student provided Form 271 to
Frankford.
6. 	First Student did not make any reportable political contributions as listed on their
Form 271 disclosure.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16131-25
4
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A party may move for summary decision upon any or all substantive issues in a
contested case. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a). The motion for summary decision must be served
with briefs and may be served with supporting affidavits. 	Under N.J.A.C. 	1:1-12.5(b),
“[t]he decision sought may be rendered if the papers and discovery which have been filed,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.”
Publicly advertised contracts are exempt from Form 271 disclosure requirements
under N.J.S.A. 19:44A-20.26. In addition, a successful bidder may submit Form 271 ten
days before entering into a contract. Ibid. In Meadowbrook Carting v. Borough of Island
Heights, 138 N.J. 307, 314-315 (1994), the New Jersey Supreme Court set forth the
circumstances in which a defect would be considered non-waivable. If the omitted portion
of the bid is mandated by statue, material to the price offered, or material to the bidder’s
ability to perform, it is non-waivable.
In this case, the student transportation services at issue were publicly advertised
by Frankford BOE on July 15, 2025. 	Form 271 is neither mandated by statute to be
furnished at the time the bid is submitted nor material to the price offered and the bidder’s
ability to perform. 	Moreover, First Student provided a completed Form 271 listing no
reportable campaign contributions ten days before the award of the contract by Frankford.
Therefore, I CONCLUDE that First Student was the lowest responsive and responsible
bidder and the contract was properly awarded by the governing body.
Krapf argues that the bid is still non-responsive by applying Local Public Contracts
Law under N.J.S.A. 40A:11-1, et seq. to explain that New Jersey courts adopted a two-
prong test to determine whether a bid defect is material. 	Under this analysis, a court
would be required to determine: (1) if the effect of the waiver of a bid defect would deprive
a government entity of assurance that the contract will be performed and guaranteed
according to specified requirements; and (2) whether the waiver of the bid defect would

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16131-25
5
adversely affect competitive bidding by placing the bidder who submitted a defective bid
in a position of advantage or otherwise undermine the necessary common standard of
competition. 	Township of River Vale v. Long Construction Company, 127 N.J. Super.
207, 216 (Law Div. 1974).
In applying this law to the facts, the absence of Form 271 still does not deprive
Frankford of assurance that the contract would be performed and guaranteed according
to the bid specifications. Form 271 requires disclosure of political contributions. That has
nothing 	to 	do 	with 	performance 	guarantees. 	Next, 	even 	though 	Frankford’s 	bid
specifications did request Form 271 with the bid submission, the waiver of the defect
would not adversely affect the bidding process or confer an advantage or otherwise
undermine the necessary standard of competition. 	Even so, First Student did provide
their Form 271 disclosure statement more than ten days before the award of the contract,
and First Student did not make any reportable campaign contributions. 	As such, First
Student’s failure to provide Form 271 with its bid submission affected neither performance
guarantees nor competitive pricing.
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that Krapf’s motion
for summary decision is DENIED, and Frankford’s cross-motion for summary decision is
GRANTED.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this case. If the Commissioner of the Department of Education
does not adopt, modify, or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless such time

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16131-25
6
limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision becomes a final decision in
accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER OF
THE 	DEPARTMENT 	OF 	EDUCATION. 	Exceptions 	may 	be 	filed 	by 	email 	to
ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of Controversies
and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the other parties.
February 9, 2026
DATE 	JOANN LASALA CANDIDO, ALAJ
on behalf of AURELIO VINCITORE, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	2/9/26
Date Mailed to Parties: 	2/9/26
id