Travis County Commissioners Court
February 16, 2010,
Item 12
>> number 12.
approve 12-month extension (modification no.
10) to contract no.
01t0068-oj, sedgwick claim management services, inc., for the third party administration for county's self-funded programs for workers compensation and auto liability.
Commissioner Huber.
>> I just have a question on this because -- this contract was first awarded in 2001, right?
and then in 2005, an exemption -- the court approved an exemption order taking this contract out of the competitive bidding requirements.
i'm just wondering why and if there's any kind of sunset -- it's been five years since that was put in place.
at some point, do I look at rebidding -- I'd like the history on it.
>> I would have to go back and review the exemption order to see if it had a sunset date on it.
to my my knowledge, it did not, but I will review that to make sure.
barbara might remember.
>> when we originally sought this contract, we had no experience in the area of doing this, because it was the beginning of our self-funded program.
so we did take it competitively.
the services that are offered are professional services, so it could have been exempted all along.
we could not bid, but procure it through another solicitation that asked for other bids.
the experience that I have had in both watching the way that our staff has negotiated on this contract as well as the research that they do through the contacts that they make with other governments in the various conferences and seminars that they go to throughout the year have suggested to me that what we're getting is probably the best price that we could get because they have been very, very aggressive on it.
but if the court would like to see it go out for solicitation, hopefully, you would approve it for this year, because the contract is about to end shortly.
but could direct the staff to the that for next year.
it's really just whatever you want to do and whether you're getting -- the staff tend to look at it from the standpoint of are we getting the price we can get from the county, and feeling, if they, are why go to the additional cost for the county of doing a solicitation.
but if the court would like to see it be resolicited at anytime, sai -- say so and it goes kind of thing.
>> I have confidence in the staff's ability, but I wanted to raise the question and feel like some proddics resolicitation is a good, healthy, fair idea.
i don't have any problem moving forward this year but I would like for us to look next year on some kind of cycle.
i don't know that we need to resolicit every year.
>> it occurred to me on item 14 and should have read 12 and 13 more closely, too, that after a ten-year period -- we're coming up on ten years on these contracts and am wondering whether or not we called to explore a county policy for the re-examination of professional services after a certain period of time, an automatic re-examination through an rsp, or --
>> one thing I would mention to the court in making that sort of thing, there are some professional services that -- well, like, for instance, your financial advisor, each of your securities procurements is a discreet and not an ongoing phenomena.
what happens with the type of contracts that you're dealing with today, the 12 and 14, is that you have claims, and some of those claims will be active for more than a year, more that than two years.
so there's a continuity issue involved in some of that.
what you might choose for a resolicitaion time period for one type of professional contract, you may want to lengthen for other types.
that doesn't mean don't go out.
it just means think about the various types as you make a policy.
>> not a one size fits all?
>> exactly.
>> let's bring them back mid year and make a decision.
>> one more question.
the 13.5 increase on this one, we've seen a lot of our costs go down on things this past year.
is there a particular reason this one's gone up that much?
>> this one began at 25% increase and negotiated down to 13.8.
we checked with harris county, tarrant county and I believe one other county, and that fee seemed to fall right in with what they're paying, and, so, we felt that that was a fair fee.
the prior modification, I believe that they had, like, an 8% increase, so we kind of held their feet to the fire on that one and seemed like the 13.8 was reasonable based on what other counties were paying.
>> that way we know what the market bears.
>> certainly.
>> in your move to approval, would you consider asking direct staff to come back us sometime this year with some sort of plan or review process on these that are automatically --
>> yes.
>> I think it requires a separate item.
i think we aught to have an item where when we do that, we can do it mid year.
some of these things you can compete in formally, others require more formal.
but I think with an appropriate agenda item, we decide mid year, long in advance of the expiration, how to proceed and do that.
but I agreum it's been a long time.
sometimes the informal competition doesn't give you a good feel for what they would submit if it were done formally and the business were really hanging in the balance.
>> can I point out that -- dan pointed out a typo on the sedgwick modification.
it should say with medical office services and says without medical office services.
>> it says without appraisal.
>> oh, okay.
>> and it's with appraisal.
>> we'll need to correct that before we ask the court to sign that, but we will do that.
>> that's in the document that we signed extending it?
>> yes.
>> and what's the change?
>> it's to -- the second sentence says this contract is for claims, administrative services for workers' comp claims without the medical audit services provided for our liable to claim administrations without aappraisal services -- should say "with" appraisal services.
>> you will make that change?
>> yes.
>> motion by Commissioner Gomez to amove.
seconded by Commissioner Hubert.
discussion?
>> all those inall in favor?
>> that passes by unanimous vote.
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:
Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:15 PM
