business • December 27, 2025

Suffolk Faces Heat Over Contract Switch to GOP-Connected Firm

Union leaders and Democrats criticize Suffolk County for dropping longtime contractor Austin Drywall in favor of firm owned by GOP planning commissioner.
By Sarah Mitchell
Image for Suffolk Faces Heat Over Contract Switch to GOP-Connected Firm

Union leaders and Democratic officials launched a fierce attack on Suffolk County’s Republican leadership last week, accusing the administration of political favoritism after the county dropped a nearly two-decade construction contract in favor of a firm owned by a GOP appointee.

The Suffolk County Department of Public Works terminated its longstanding agreement with Austin Drywall Corp., a unionized contractor based in Bohemia, and awarded the work to Renu Contracting & Restoration. The company is owned by Michael VanDenburg, who was appointed to the county Planning Commission last year by Republican County Executive Ed Romaine.

Democratic Suffolk Legislator Greg Doroski led a group of union workers in a protest outside the Public Works building in Yaphank, demanding answers about the contract switch.

“Austin Drywall Corp. was praised by the County Executive, praised by Majority Leader Nick Caracappa, and had a good record — there are questions that must be answered,” Doroski told reporters gathered at the demonstration.

Union officials and Democrats have labeled the deal a conflict of interest, pointing to VanDenburg’s government position and his history of donations to Republican committees in Suffolk County. Campaign finance records show multiple contributions to GOP causes.

The controversy extends beyond political connections to potential legal violations. Suffolk County’s Apprenticeship Law mandates that contractors on public projects exceeding $250,000 must participate in state-registered apprenticeship programs. These programs are designed to train local workers while saving taxpayer money, since apprentices earn lower wages while learning trades.

Vincent Alu, a union labor leader, accused the county of ignoring its own regulations. “The county appears to have waived that law,” Alu said. “If we are a nation of laws, those who enforce the law must follow the law, and the county must explain how and why it may have violated its own law.”

The Austin Drywall contract was described as a massive “on-call” agreement worth millions of dollars that allowed Suffolk County to quickly deploy union workers for repairs throughout Nassau and Suffolk counties. Union officials claim Renu received preferential treatment by being allowed to submit a bid below prevailing wage requirements while other contractors faced stricter enforcement of labor standards.

Democratic Suffolk Legislator Jason Richberg emphasized the economic impact on local workers. “At a time where we are seeing record numbers of people at food pantries, we don’t want to see our local men and women not in work, we want to see local work done with local people,” Richberg said.

Suffolk County officials have strongly denied any wrongdoing or political interference in the bidding process. Charles Bartha, commissioner of the Suffolk Department of Public Works, defended the decision as following proper legal procedures.

“This contract was put out to bid in accordance with the provisions of New York State and Suffolk County law,” Bartha stated. “The bids were carefully scrutinized, and the contract was awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, as the law requires.”

Bartha stressed that the decision “should not be construed as a negative as to the quality of any other bidder,” though county officials have not explained why they terminated Austin Drywall’s contract despite previous praise for the contractor’s performance.

Republican sources familiar with the bidding process dismissed the criticism as partisan politics, though they declined to provide specific details about the contract award process.

The dispute highlights ongoing tensions between Suffolk County’s Republican leadership and Democratic opposition, with union relationships becoming a key battleground. The controversy also raises questions about transparency in county contracting processes and the enforcement of local labor laws designed to protect Long Island workers.