Travis County Commissioners Court
February 15, 2005
Item 16
16. Approve quantum meruit claim for city of Austin for Travis County's share of expenses related to the purchase of nextgen medical management system.
>> I believe you all -- cyd grimes Travis County purchasing agent. Last week arlene was here and you all had asked for some additional information. One of the questions I believe you asked was -- [indiscernible] oh, yeah if the software has been transferred to the hospital district. Marietta was working on that.
>> no I wasn't.
>> you weren't. That's what mr. Hilly told me.
>> I think that I have the answer.
>> good, I'm glad somebody has the answer.
>> we have a very extensive memo from [indiscernible]
>> yes. And with regard to where the licenses physically rest at this moment in time, the licenses are part of the fqhc question. Lodge stackally the licenses still -- logistically, the licenses still rest with the city of Austin. I think all of you are familiar with the fqhc issues, then the licenses would be a part of that package, if you will, that would transfer over at that time.
>> your fourth bullet says all software has been transferred to the district.
>> at the time we were convinced that was the case. We received notice just yesterday that in fact it's included as a part of the fqhc practice. For that reason it has not been transferred, this particular software.
>> but in any case from -- from all that we know, this is an obligation that the county has, it's just that we don't have a contract to support it?
>> that is correct. The deposit discussed this patient management software with the court back on February 10th of 2004. And at that time the court -- the court directed the department to -- to enter into negotiation was the city to draft a contract to purchase this equipment believing that this equipment would benefit county residents who were seeking services through the primary health care centers. This -- this software has been purchased. It has been installed. It's up and its working and I believe that at the time our discussion was around the 97,000 mark, I now we are under that amount, you know, and so --
>> we are convinced that the true value today is the amount of the invoice, that is $72,863.
>> yes, we are.
>> any more questions? Move approval of the quantum merit claim in the amount stated.
>> second.
>> authorize that it be paid.
>> judge.
>> yes, sir.
>> I think I understand what happened on this thing. I mean, given that we did talk about it, okay it. But it somehow didn't go through the proper channels of going through purchasing. That the glitch here? Is that the technical -- issue for quantum merit wise?
>> let me just -- a lot of the contracts from hhs we are not involved in negotiations. They came to court on this one, asked if the court wanted to do it. You all gave them that approval. The contract I believe was drafted by the county attorney's office, sent over to the city and the city kept sending it back with changes.
>> purchasing was involved in that.
>> yeah, we were involved in the contract being drafted. Once it was drafted we were involved.
>> we all met and -- in the auditor's office. I think what happened was that the city actually already -- that's where it was done before any of the county people were involved.
>> > my understanding we couldn't get an agreement with the city [multiple voices] soft wear in the process.
>> I guess -- I'm uncomfortable with it. Not that I'm not going to vote for it, we have gotten it, we're using it. But it's just not the way that we need to do business. This could probably apply more pressure, this will eventually get to the hospital district, the last thing they need is the county not seeming like, you know, we're interested in working with this thing because I guess we technically could say city, you all eat the $72,000. Which probably would get some rise out of the city. It would if I were over there. I just want it known that I would be, you know, most of the time very, very reluctant to do this but I guess -- which is the reason Commissioner Sonleitner said last week, quantum merit things probably get all of our attention, technicality is what happened on this thing. Given that we have got the product we will be using it or let that be known.
>> don't we have the process down now where there won't be any more quantum merit. The city --
>> we have a person who is supposed to attend staff meetings to ensure that we are included in the loop, we are working on it.
>> should we just make a study or send something where it says writings that we will not, you know -- you know, we will not tolerate this from this point forward? You know, we do need -- that ought to get to somebody over there if they are going to want to be reimbursed. All we need to do is make sure that it done procedure procedurally correct.
>> that's why I consistently don't vote for them. I don't think that it should not be paid. I need to look to three other people. That's the only way to vote no, call attention to this. Discuss this in court and lay it all out here and discuss it. My no vote will reflect that. Will somebody please pay attention to this, because this is what happens when these things are not done properly. You have to come to court, might take a couple of weeks, we are going to talk about this in excess, it doesn't look good for anybody involved.
>> and it's not really a good thing to do. But, you know, business must go on. Because our constituents need this service. But let's pay attention to the process.
>> okay.
>> the other thing is that normally there are two sides to this story. In Commissioners court we always get ours. But the law provides guidance. Who do we -- clearly we agreed to purchase this up front, although we typically require a written contract.
>> right.
>> clearly the software was acquired and used and apparently the value instead of being 90 plus thousand is 72, the amount of the invoice. So if they were to sue us in court, seems like they would prevail, just take a lot longer, a lot more money for us and them. I have a hard time finding that there is a better alternative.
>> there's not.
>> myself.
>> so -- any more discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Gomez, Daugherty, get a haircut, Commissioner Daugherty. [laughter] yours truly voting in favor of it. Commissioner Sonleitner voting against. Maybe it was that long last night at campo --
>> Gerald Daugherty is the name, judge.
>> Gerald, bring your own chair.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, February 16, 2005 8:38 AM