Travis County Commssioners Court
October 14, 2003
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.
Item 29
29. Approve contract award with sickle cell anemia association for various sickle cell services.
>> I didn't get any backup.
>> did anyone get backup? I had cyd's backup.
>> I don't, I don't.
>> given what we all just went through, do we need -- stephen, did you guys do a memo on this?
>> actually, we didn't do a memo. I think there was an issue regarding some language in the contract. And in terms of who would have certain responsibilities and -- and be the -- the first line of contact when there was a -- when there was an issue. I think marietta drafted a couple of different ways to do that. And what we were coming to you today for is to get direction on which one of those choices. Marietta can lay out the two options and discussions that have been going on with -- with the county attorney's office and purchasing with marietta representing my perspective.
>> can I ask a quick question before we get there. Is there two options that both are agreed to by the county attorney's office? And the purchasing agent? Or is there one that's in agreement of the purchasing agent is cool with it and the county attorney's office is cool with it?
>> I -- I still don't believe has we have here is a legal issue at all. I think both of them are fine. It's really up to the court on which procedure they want to follow, which -- which -- where they want their protections to lie.
>> okay.
>> we don't have a legal issue.
>> okay. Then in terms of whether it's a purchasing issue, do you have issues with -- or -- either one of the preferred things that's going to be laid out, are both of them okay with you in that it really does come down to a policy choice with us?
>> well, we wanted to use our standard clause that we use in all of our contracts. As I wrote in my memorandum, I think it provides consistency, staff knows what they are working with, contractors know what they are working with. I think that the added language confuses the issue of a dispute. And when purchasing gets involved. As it stands now, the department works with the contractor, on the contract on a daily basis. And as long as everything is going along fine, it might have some -- there might be some discussions about doing it this way or doing it that way, as long as the department and the contractor are working together and get along and agree on the terms and conditions, that's how it works. But once there's a dispute. Once the department and the contractor have a dispute over the interpretations of the terms and conditions, we feel like that purchasing should be involved at that point. If you -- if you allow this other language, it says there's initial review, dispute review. I mean, the department could go on for a long time, arguing back and forth the contractor. So david has tried to write it, add some language, that tries to make it clearer, but I still think when it's a dispute that the -- that we should come in at that point. And so -- so I would like to use my --
>> the discrepancy is that there is a dispute between the vendor and hhs, purchasing would get involved, to try to resolve the dispute.
>> correct.
>> and the other option is what?
>> well, the -- it's the same -- well, the definition of dispute is when purchasing gets involved.
>> let me see if I can help you get through it very quick. I have only just started on Friday, they will tell you maybe we can get through quick because when I talked to both sides, I think they are both saying the same thing. It's just really how we get there. First of all, I think that you have a memo from cyd. I think that the third page of that memo is a short paragraph entitled disputes and appeals October '03. This is the paragraph that cyd refers to when she says it's her standard paragraph in all of her contract. From what I understand, that's true. It's not a standard paragraph that's ever been used in any human services contract. So after doing some initial investigation, what I found is they are very happy and content with this paragraph and all of their other contracts. For the first time they wanted to use it because it's standard under the human services contract. When they send it across to stephen to see, he read it for the first time, there's a question about whether you heard cyd say that it's all right for the contractor and stephen's office to talk. But -- but if you read this language, that's not clear. Because what I believe after talking to cyd for a while on Friday is the standard photograph we use is not our actual practice. And where the line falls is what cyd in her mind considered a dispute, something that she wants to handle. Drawing that line of a triage. For example, I think if we use this paragraph and one of these agencies signed it, and we got to the situation we just talked about just before, I haven't gotten my check. Why hasn't my money sent, who do they call? What cyd has told me is that if it's something that turns out to be a mistake or they didn't realize they forgot to put in this one document they needed they can call stephen. Say there's not a real dispute, just a misunderstanding, fine. But if it's a real dispute, in her mind something that the contract terms we differ in interpretation, that should go to her. I think they are both saying the same thing. That's what they want. The problem is writing it. Two ways to do it, one define dispute and draw a line somewhere. These are the kind of things that go to stephen, these are the kinds of things that go to cyd, serious ones, there's so many types of things what you call a dispute what I call a dispute much. As far as the agency is concerned their check hasn't come in, they've got a dispute, there's a problem. The way cyd just mentioned, the language that I asked marietta to put together, would have the first place that an agency would have if there's a problem continue operating with the department they deal with. Human services. But that if it can be resolved right away. Fine, but we have added this language that says but steven doesn't have any right to change the contract term, to waive a contract term. If it turns out to be something where there really is a black and white difference about what the contract says, they have got to go over to cyd. Those things that can be resolved quickly steven handles. Cyd calls that a dispute, what we worry about from a legal standpoint from the stand paragraph that they use, it just says dispute. I think an agency would read this and say do I have a dispute or not, do I call steve or cyd, it's not clear. The actual practice, I understand from for all of those other contracts is that cyd is not trying to keep people from calling the department. But this language is confusing, I believe. Yes, Commissioners?
>> I just want to say is this language in all of the existing social service contracts or is this the first one?
>> from what I understand --
>> currently the only language even addressing disputes is there's a paragraph in the contract that says if the parties agree they can go to the dispute resolution center for -- [multiple voices]
>> to answer your question, the standard provision that cyd is referring to, to my knowledge, has never been in the human services contract. So if the first time we are asking to carry that over, which could be a good thing to be able to specify how we handle disputes even more clearly in our contracts. The problem is they are trying to carry over a provision that they don't actually [indiscernible] practice is different from what it says and drop it on to human services contract. [multiple voices]
>> you are looking at 52 social services contract. I think we sent stephen out on on a mission to come back with a report on how we deal with this. This is one of the 52, I believe.
>> that's right.
>> one of the 52 that we have given him an assignment on [multiple voices] is not actually implemented in the other social services -- the other 51 social service contracts. Then I would like to see exactly when he comes back within a two weeks time frame and see where he is on that --
>> the sickle cell contract, I'm sorry, we misunderstood, that is not part of the c.a.n. Process. But we have used the same boilerplate for social services that we are using for sickle sell, but it's not in the 52. This contract is not.
>> what language have we had regarding disputes?
>> just the --
>> the hhs contracts.
>> just the mediation. That if the parties agree, they can go to the dispute resolution center. That's all. That was ever in there.
>> so is the question whether we keep the dispute resolution language or whether we go to -- to purchasing?
>> no.
>> the issue is the language of the dispute's clause. And what I wanted to do is use the clause that we have used in all of our other contracts, successfully for the last eight or nine years, there hasn't been a misunderstanding on anyone's part. You know, if they are not happy with the --
>> [indiscernible] [multiple voices]
>> it is a question of language. As I understand it --
>> what's the problem with the language that's in the --
>> it says that the -- [multiple voices]
>> that the department will handle the initial dispute. [everyone talking at once]
>> unable to to resolve it, goes to mediation.
>> purchasing, then mediation.
>> oh,.
>> well, that's the same thing.
>> we think it confuses on when there is a dispute, is it -- in the department -- what we see it's going to delay the process, it's going to delay resolution, it could cause more problems for us in the long run, so my recommendation is we use our standard disputes clause that we use in all of our other contracts.
>> [indiscernible] have a big issue with that?
>> it's the question -- I think we are in the same page in terms of process. The reason that it's a policy issue is a matter of clarification of language. And in terms of clarification of language, I rely on our attorneys for that.
>> how big of a deal is it?
>> well, it's become a big deal.
>> all right, then why don't we wait and make this decision -- if we are going to make the change, let's make it in all of the human services contract. I don't know that I can make it in one.
>> right.
>> and the -- I stuck this on the agenda because we have kind of been sitting on it three or four weeks. The court approved this two or three months ago, took a long time to get the contract ready. Then I understand that they -- two or three weeks we have been going back and forth on the dispute stuff. I think we ought to take a good look at whatever language we land on, put it in all of the contracts. We may well be looking at a year from now. I don't care how we go can -- I don't know how we will go with it. There has not been a problem with the agency with the current language, right?
>> right.
>> that's why I asked is it really a big deal? I don't think it's big enough for us to sit on it three weeks as we have done. Especially a contract that the court approved funding for two or three months ago. So my thing would be let's just go can the -- with the contract, standard language that we have been using in hss, look at this thing over the next year along with the other stuff. Whatever change we make when we do all of the contracts, stick that language in there. I don't care where we land on it. Now, if we -- luckily we have not invoked this provision much anyway, right.
>> to my knowledge, no.
>> well, I mean, we get involved in disputes all the time. I mean --
>> maybe the landing somewhere between -- [indiscernible] -- between looking at the chronology, if I'm looking at sid's chronology, this expired last December. We have to fix this situation for 2003. And so can we just stick with what we have got at this moment in time that everybody is comfy with to get the sickle cell folks fixed for 2003. But as we are going through this grand kum ba, ya related to new social service contracts and getting everybody done for calendar, '04, if there's any change to be done, we don't rush to judgment today simply dealing with the one agency. We go with the standard stuff right now, no changes, and cyd and susan and all of the rest of the world can be working on all of the lovely changes that we will be doing for calendar '04 so we don't hold up the one agency because there may be larger issues. I'll tell ya, I am kind of going towards where cyd wants to have me land about how we --
>> second.
>> judge, I mean [multiple voices]
>> language so we can get this thing moved there --
>> current hhs language [everyone talking at once]
>> take out the dispute clause that was written into it, leave it without a dispute clause, leave with it remediation.
>> this is only for the remaining six weeks of this contract -- more than that. Calendar '03. So we can get this situation resolved and we will handle the big thing for '04. [multiple voices]
>> so you are approving the contract.
>> no, not with the language.
>> without that language.
>> with the standard -- [multiple voices]
>> that's what I'm seconding.
>> that's why I suggested merely yet take, I said the boilerplate, look [indiscernible] [multiple voices]
>> need better language, let's do it all [multiple voices]
>> that's my suggestion.
>> any more discussion of the motion?
>> yes.
>> not to bring the preceding conversation back into this thing, but the sickle cell anemia association has to be one of the contracts that expired that did not submit an audit report. Unless that's cleaned up, my report shows that that -- is that the case?
>> let's check into it, find out.
>> okay.
>> can we say contingent upon the appropriate audit being turned in? Is that --
>> approve the contract in -- delay funding until we clarify this issue.
>> okay. That sounds good.
>> all right.
>> how is that?
>> thanks.
>> do you want us to bring the contract back to court?
>> no. [multiple voices]
>> county judge to sign it.
>> authorize county judge to sign it.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Tuesday, October 15, 2003 12:52 PM