Travis County Commssioners Court
December 2, 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 7
7 is quick, I just need to vote no.
>> let's hold on then.
>> okay. 7. Approve modification no. 3 to contract no. Ps000299kw, southwest key program, inc., For educational and counseling services for the juvenile justice alternative education program. I move approval.
>> second.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner, discussion?
>> I is this the one where -- okay question. Is this now coming -- for the coming through an a quantum merit claim?
>> stephen?
>> not mine.
>> what's your question?
>> we had an item on the 18th pulled for about three different weeks also tied into southwest key related to a quantum merit claim. Then we have this one. My question is are these one and the same or are these separate situations? Because they are tied into not having a correct schedule and that's why we have the quantum merit claim. Does somebody know that?
>> if this is can't stomach merit it's not posted properly.
>> that's where I'm getting to.
>> you all are going to fast this morning.
>> the question is is this item no. 3 or is it a quantum merit.
>> it's a modification. John healy and I had a discussion when it was caution stomach mer quantum merit, he he felt it was more appropriate for us to do as a mod instead of a quantum merit. There was a problem with months that they were monitoring, this is an increase for one time period and it will go back to the original not to exceed amount.
>> what was the issue and what's the solution?
>> monitoring, closer monitoring by the --
>> what was the issue?
>> [indiscernible] can you explain it.
>> they exceed their not to exceed.
>> was the issue that they exceeded the budget?
>> this is jason in my office. He's been working with the department.
>> good morning, jason.
>> the vendor southwest key was monitoring the wrong 12 months and that forced them to go -- it's a tier level contract, price contract. So in that one or two wrong months they were pushed into a higher level tier and that forced them to go over the nte, so the resolution is the -- the department and the agency are going to monitor their tracking expenditures more closely. And that's the only --
>> okay.
>> did they exceed the budget?
>> for the nte in the contract yes.
>> what's nte.
>> not to exceed amount. The not to exceed was 384,000.
>> [indiscernible]
>> not to exceed amount the same as the budgeted amount?
>> I'm sorry?
>> what's the difference between the not to exceed amount and the budgeted amount?
>> well, the budget amount is the amount of money the department has to expend on this contract. The not to exceed is the amount the contract is not supposed to exceed --
>> bebudget more money than the contract.
>> in some cases.
>> in this case?
>> I can't answer that question, judge.
>> accrue from '03 to '04.
>> the issue here is that they invoiced for us more than we budgeted for the contract.
>> they -- they were monitoring the wrong months of the contract. They didn't exceed the budget. They exceeded the not to exceed amount, but it was based on the wrong months. So we are still within budgets.
>> what months under the contract and what months did they in fact monitor?
>> do you know that?
>> I don't know that for sure without talking to the department.
>> we will call it back up later today.
>> okay, we will have the department here to try to explain it.
>> yeah, I thought it was real simple as a modification number 3. Based on the backup. What you explain those is a lot more complicated than the backup says.
>> I had the backup from [indiscernible] always my issue.
>> there's a simple way to lay it out. That's what I am looking for. Whatever the problem was before we cleared it up. I want to know how we did that.
>> just closer monitoring of the months that they were billing us for.
>> the attorney that worked on us, mr. Himely is here.
>> is there a simple explanation?
>> my explanation is probably not as accurate as the one that the department could give, but I can give you my understanding. This contract had a not to exceed amount, not to exceed amount is not required or necessary to be in the contract. Sometimes they are; sometimes they're not. Sometimes they would correspond with the amount that's budgeted, other times it would not correspond because you may have a budget that -- that is -- can be applied to any number of different contracts so that the total or the aggregate amount for all of these different contractors or vendors would be the budgeted amount and each one may or may not have a not to exceed amount included in the contract. It's my understanding that they were assuming appear 12-year -- a 12-month period that corresponded with the state fiscal year as opposed to a county fiscal year or vice versa, so they were counting the expenditures or they were tracking expenditures from what they thought was the beginning of the contract period but in fact the contract period had begun a month before. So they were not aware as they prophylacticked the end of -- as the approached the end of the contract year they were not aware that they were in danger of exceeding the not to exceed amount. In fact Travis County did receive the services, this is the kind of contract where the county can -- is in a position to monitor and control and -- the amount of expenditures because we control the referrals or how many people are receiving the services. Travis County did in fact receive the services, the services were rendered, we accepted them, but because it was covered by a contract, we decided that it was not appropriate as a quantum merit claim but that the appropriate way to deal with the -- with that would be to amend the contract to either raise the not to exceed amount or get rid of it altogether. In this case we decided to raise it and so that the -- that the expenditures did not exceed the not to exceed amount.
>> thank you.
>> [indiscernible] by being proactive.
>> I'm led to believe that the department is, along with the contractor, are going to more closely monitor what period is being covered by the contract and make sure that they are aware of where they are in the -- in the expenditures over the contract period. The other way to -- would be to -- to not include and a not to exceed amount in the contract and we have discussed that as a possibility. The pros and cons of doing that.
>> the pump of the knot to exceed amount is to limit the amount spent on the contract.
>> that's true.
>> if you -- if it's impossible to exceed that amount without the court authorizing additional money.
>> that's correct.
>> let me ask you some questions. We contracted for services for how many months?
>> 12 months. 12 months in any given year. I think the contract automatically renews.
>> long standing.
>> but the contract was for a time certain to begin on a certain date and end on a certain date. For a 12 month period.
>> uh-huh.
>> we got services for how many months?
>> 12 months.
>> all right. So if we contracted for -- for a total of how much money?
>> as I recall, it was like 384,000.
>> 384,000.
>> and they billed us for how much?
>> I think about 26,000, more than that.
>> yeah.
>> so is this modification paying the additional 26,000?
>> yes, it's to pay the 26,000.
>> and there's no question that we got the service.
>> correct.
>> and the value of it is $26,000.
>> yes.
>> and it looks like there's also a decrease of 26,000 in the next fiscal year to kind of -- because of the shifting of the one-month from here to there. Is the normal thing that would have happened if they were following the right months, bumping up to the not to exceed they would have come to the court to ask for a modification of the contract that we either would say yes, continue doing what you are doing or, no, you can't exceed that.
>> I -- basically, but, you know, this -- this is -- has to do with the -- with the [indiscernible] of the kids who are referred to the jjaep. There's only so much control you have over how many kids are going to be enrolled or referred into your jjaep, it's a cooperative with other school districts. This southwest key gets paid based on how many students are in there. So your not to exceed amount is a rejection or an estimate of what you expect to have in the way of enrollment of these kids who are referred to the jjaep during the school year. If -- what happened in this case was that the number of children who ended up receiving services in jjaep exceeded the projection. I discussed with them the -- what were your options if you had been able to look at this from the front end instead of afterward? And they are limited. In other words if kids had been expelled from regular school and have been sent to jjaep, the options for just saying well, we are not going to provide those services to those kids are limited. That's my understanding.
>> but in the same way on professional services like legal contracts outside attorneys, when you guys are bumping up on the not to exceed, you come to court to get a court mod. If you say yep, you're right, we need to continue doing business with that particular vendor for a legitimate reason, services rendered, we change the not to exceed. It's better to do it on the front end as opposed to --
>> after hearing the reason.
>> that would have been the way to have held it.
>> the contract expired July 31 of '03, that's four or five months ago.
>> it automatically renews, judge, those -- the contract stay ifs place, for the service that the jjaep --
>> July 31st we knew that we were 26,000 short.
>> did we know? In July?
>> I can't answer that question, judge.
>> we have to know.
>> jason is saying yes.
>> the billing -- the overage is for the month of may. The -- that contract follows -- they follow academic calendar. And that billing is for the last month of the academic calendar which is the month of may.
>> contract expired July 31, '03, by its terms?
>> right.
>> I guess, we have been trying to resolve it since that time?
>> yes.
>> it's no longer quantum merit.
>> correct.
>> it's no longer a quantum merit.
>> in my view not to exceed means not beto go over. That provision was violated. I assume we put in a not to exceed amount in the contract for a reason. The reason being that we meant to spend a certain amount of money and we capped it. But I assume that if services exceeded that amount, then during the contract period we thought somebody would call it to our attention. I mean, -- are we taking $26,000 from the post July 31 '03 contract, though?
>> they accrued it so I don't know --
>> won't we fall short in '04 as a result of doing that?
>> are we going to fall short in '04.
>> no. Jason is saying no.
>> we expect them to provide less services in '04 than in '03.
>> the department wishes to keep the nte at 384,000 for the '04 fiscal year. They have a [indiscernible] in the system for that.
>> is that for 11 months or 12 months?
>> again they follow a 10 month calendar. So the services were for 10 months.
>> we were told a few moments ago that this is driven by the number of juveniles who receive the services.
>> uh-huh.
>> which is beyond our control.
>> correct.
>> that's really depends on the school districts that we -- so I guess all we can say now is if we found ourselves running short, before the end of the contract, that ought to be called to our attention. If school is out in may, is this a summer program, too.
>> I'm not for sure. On that.
>> [indiscernible]
>> we ought to know.
>> if we have taken 26,000 from next year, the likelihood of running short is greater than it was in '03.
>> I can just speak that the jjaep fund is very well funded and is no current risk of running short of funding.
>> so we have not exceeded the budget.
>> you might have exceeded the line item, but with the required transfer, but the overall jjaep budget is well funded.
>> how much money is in it?
>> it receives funding from the school districts based on the number of kids that we receive. If we receive more kids, get sent in, we receive more money. So the general theory is that the operating costs of the program are completely supported by the students that get sent into the contract. The Commissioners court fund juvenile probation staff that monitors the kids and program that all of the operating costs are borne by the school districts that are participating in the program.
>> when they ran short in fact they didn't run short because their money was here.
>> they might have exceeded a contract amount, but they wouldn't have run short on budget.
>> their money was on the -- on deposit with us?
>> we had -- we had sufficient funding within the jjaep budget certainly to cover any additional costs. Based on the status of the -- of the budget. If additional kids were to come in, they would get more, the school districts would provide more money.
>> okay.
>> I guess the -- my request would number the future, the backup really ought to reflect the facts. I mean, five bullets would have disclosed all of this, I think. I don't recall the can quantum merit,.
>> I was like where did the quantum merit go, they are just rolling it in. If I see anything about that, I don't vote for it. Since this is not a quantum merit claim, it sounds like everybody has been taken to task and is going to vote for it much more closely, I would vote for mod 3.
>> any other kicks to this item before we move on [multiple voices]
>> we've already had a motion, it's been seconded, you made the motion, judge, I seconded it.
>> that was a good motion. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Tuesday, December 3, 2003 6:52 AM