ALC-Review

Our members, if you could take your seat, we're gonna, uh, get this meeting started. Welcome to Ree, Senator Petty. Do you have anything you want to start off with? All right, members, we're gonna start, uh, call a meeting to order and start with the methods of finance. Katie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon members. My name is Katie Walden with the Bureau of Legislative Research Fiscal Division. The first section that we're going to review this afternoon are our methods of finance. Those are item B in your packet. You'll see there's a letter from DFNA that lists the projects and then behind them we've prepared a schedule. For your review. The first project for your review is from ASU Jonesboro. It is a $2.1 million project. They're using university reserves to replace their baseball turf and their stadium. The second project is with ASU Mid-South. This is fully paid by Milages, the project is currently totaling $300,000 and it is for a university center roof replacement. Item 3 is with ASU Mountain Home. This is for the expansion and renovation of their go toss hall, which is their healthcare education facility. They're using all federal grants and it's valued at $6 million currently. Number 4 is from Arkansas State Police. This is revised to be $22.3 million using some AARPA funds and also foundation and special revenues. This is to repair and replace a barracks facility at Camp Robinson in North Little Rock? Item number 5 with the Arkansas State Police. This is for security system and replacement at the Arkansas governor's mansion in downtown Little Rock. This project is revised to total $1.28 million using all federal ARPA funds. Number 6, is a project with a division of building A authority. This is for debt service payments for the Justice Building cash funds. It's $1.9 million. Item number 7 is from the University of Arkansas Fayetteville. Um, this project is revised to total $44.9 million using university gifts and reserves. This is for consolidation and improvement of their Wingate galleries. Which is part of their school of art and design district. Number 8 is the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. It is totaling $45.8 million using bond proceeds, university reserves and federal grants. This is for their multi-use silicone carbide National Research Fab Lab. Which is part of the Arkansas Research and Technology Park. And finally, item number 9 is with UAMS. This project totals $513,000 using all university revenues and revenue or reserves and revenues, and this is for the Walker NX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are the methods of finance for this month. All members, any questions on these items? Representative Jean you recognized. Uh yes, on item 4 I just. Just a question on the revenue, the special revenue, the 16%, what, what, what special revenue fund is that? We can get someone from state police to answer Representative Jean's question. You would just introduce yourself for the record when you get seated and then you can go ahead and answer his question. Karen Perry, DPS CFO. No. Jenna Castleberry, deputy CFO of DPS, I'm over to your far right. Uh, the, the, what special revenue account is that coming out of? This is driver's license revenues. So is that driven by the driver's license when we renew and Yes, sir. OK. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Right. Representative Hammer, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I don't know if you can answer this question or bring somebody up the can is for 200 beds and includes a classroom based on the number of, um, um, potential troopers that come in, is 200 going to be adequate and how far into the future will 200 be adequate? We're going to bring up some help. OK, thank you. I think one of the other ones might have turned their mic off for your stuff. There you go. It's on. I can try it. All right, don't touch anything and you can answer his question. Go and introduce yourself if you would. Mike Moyer, uh, service major for the state police. Uh, Senator Hammer, uh, 200 beds would, um. Be sufficient for our current troop schools also for housing our trainers, but also that would, uh, take an account for outside agencies when they come from a distance away, that they would also be able to be housed there also instead of getting hotel rooms or traveling back across state during training. OK, so in the foreseeable future, then how many, how many are you having to run through troop school now? It varies, um, normally the current barracks that we have, um, it will sleep about 90, and that is 100% maxed out during troop school between new recruits and also drill instructors and then other training that's going on at our main headquarters. OK. All right. So this will carry into the future there. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. Members, any other questions? All right, thank you for coming down. Thank you. Members, any other questions on any of the items of finance? Are seeing none without objection, these items will stand reviewed. Members, we have a supplemental agenda that we're going to take up at the end of the, the regular agenda. Uh, now I'm going to recognize, uh, Representative Painter for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll make a motion that we suspend the rules and add the supplemental agenda to the list of items today. The motion in a second. Second, all those in favor say aye, opposed. All right, we'll add that supplemental agenda to the end of the regular agenda and that takes us to item C, discretionary grants, Katie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are 2 groups of grants for your review today. The first are submitted by the Department of Health. They're in C1 in your packet. The first grant for your review from the Department of Health is a grant with the Foundation for Medical Care. This is to fund the personal responsibility education program for, uh, Education for abstinence training and health for adolescents. The second grant is with the Baptist Health Medical Center. This is $310,000 for, um, increasing public access to breastfeeding support through a hotline, a 24 hour hotline. Items 34, and 5 on your grants for the Department of Health are all for various state entities that will operate the 988 suicide and crisis lifeline that's available statewide. So those are the grants for the Department of Health. Next, you have the grants for the Department of Human Services. Those are an item C2. The first one there is a grant with the community advocacy research and evaluation group. This is to provide evaluation of the Partnership for Success grant. The next grant is with the area agency on aging of Northwest Arkansas. This grant is for the seniors, farmers market, nutrition program. Number 3, to bridging the the gaps of Arkansas. This is another grantee for the partnership for Success program, which relates to community substance misuse prevention and mental health? Number 4 is with the NEA Divine intervention Incorporated in Jonesboro, this grant is for operating in addiction recovery support center in that area. Then items 567, and 8 are all to various entities, also for the partnership for Success program which relates to providing counseling for substance abuse and mental health, and those provide those services statewide. At the bottom of page C5 you have items 9 and going on. The next page 9, 1011, and 12. Are all grants to entities around the state that help with the supplemental nutrition assistance program for employment and training services. And the final grant for your reviews on page C7. This is a $2.5 million federal grant to our house incorporated in Little Rock, and this is a federal sub-grant that will provide family crisis stabilization services. Those are the grants for your review today, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Members, any questions on these grants? Aren't seeing none without objection to these items stand reviewed. Alright, Katie takes us to item D. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Now we're going to move to the contracts that are on the agenda for your review today. They begin with item D. You'll see a cover letter from Miss Jessica Patterson that states that all of the contracts that are submitted for your review today were, um, reviewed and, and determined to be lawful and in proper order. So we'll begin with the construction contracts. For your review, those are under item D2. The first one is with Arkansas Tech University with insight engineers. This is an amendment to an existing contract to increase expenses for civil surveys. Items 2. And going all the way to Let's see. Item 8. These are all contracts for the Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism, and they are all either with engineering. Companies or architectural firms to provide services for the state parks, either engineering services for the state parks, trail planning, building design, etc. So items 2 through 7 are all for the parks and heritage department. Item number 8 also with the Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism. This is pollution management. This is for the renovation of campgrounds at Lake Chico State Park. It's the 5th Amendment to an existing contract. Item number 9 also with Parks Heritage and tourism. This is for a lodge improvements at Petty Jean State Park. It's the 5th Amendment to this existing contract. Then you have contracts 1011, 12, and 13, or excuse me, 12, and those are also with the Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism, also with architectural firms for projects in the state parks. Item number 13 on page 9 is with Henderson State University and SCM Architects PLLC. This is Amendment 5 to an existing contract and it is for on-call architectural services at Henderson State. Item number 14 is with the University of Arkansas with core architects. This is the First Amendment to an existing contract, and it is for data collection and analysis. And site design for a parking garage study project. Those are the construction-related contracts for this month. All right, members, any questions on these items? Senator Irvin, you recognize 13. You want someone from Henderson. We could get someone from Henderson. Perfect. OK Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Shane Broadway, ASU System. Thank you. Could you just on this, could you just tell me how many building projects y'all have got, y'all have got going on at Henderson at the current time, I don't believe any. Uh, this is just for the on-call architect architect in case you had. Building systems or something go down, but currently none are, none are planned, but you always need a non-call architect on hand. We've done some renovations to buildings with some ANCRC funds. But I think if I'm correct, I may be. I think they're all those are completed right now. So this is just, you would only expend these funds if you needed the architect. this is appropriation basically only, but, um, do you know how much has been spent to date? I know you, I've seen, oh, here's paid today, 585. That is for projects that were funded through ANCRC. They were funded through a ANCRC OK, so those But what we, what you've paid out in 585, you're saying that those funds were not cash funds but from Gras OK, OK, because we don't, we don't have the funds to pay an architect I mean I think that's the line of questioning because to your point, my point from what happened this morning when we deferred the loan payments are all grant funds. If there's any construction that goes on that campus is from a grant or a donation, even the architectural fees would also be from that are included in that grant. OK, just because I, I wanna make sure that we're not. Approving defer deferment of a loan repayment but then allowing other projects to move forward. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Thank you, Senator. Senator Hammer, is your question for Henderson? All right. Senator Johnson, is yours for Henderson? OK, we'll come back to you in just a second. OK. Thank you, Mr. Brory. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator. All right, Senator Hammer, you're recognized. Thank you, number 12 for department Parks Heritage and tourism, please. If we could get someone for parks, heritage and tourism, please. Just introduce yourself for the record and we'll get on with it. Marty Ryle, director of legislative affairs, Parks Heritage and tourism. Uh, Christopher Meyers, uh, manager of planning and development Arkel state parks. Welcome, Senator Hammer. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just real quick, can you tell us what some of the projects that you requested the money for and just. Just kind of highlight what they are for as far as if I understand this right, is for ongoing projects at the stadium. That you're asking for. Um, at War Memorial Stadium, this project right now is for, uh, lateral bracing for the north end zone stands. A structural enhancements to the stands. So as far as any other improvements, it's, this is all basically for structural, not for anything else then, sir, this project, yes, sir. OK, thank you. You're welcome, Mr. Chair. Representative, you recognize Representative Pager? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I've noticed on each of these contracts for you guys. It's been an increase, increase, increase, increase, uh, and I get it parks and maintenance and everything else like that. Are we still maintaining a, a good, I think the last percentage I saw was something over 20%, bringing in revenue. Are we still maintaining that as we continue to increase the cost of spending in all these 12 different contracts. Because I just want to make sure I, I get it, one of the priorities of the governor has been, you know, making sure people are going to the parks and I'd get it, you know, we want to have great parks, but making sure that we're not in the hole cause some of these have 1011 increases over a period of time. And I just want to make sure we're ahead, not below. Yes, sir. Um, I didn't, my, my section does not handle the maintenance itself. We just handle capital improvements, um, but yes, um, the maintenance is, is always on par. Um, it is also, uh, funded through Amendment 75. Most of the maintenance work as well. Follow up, Mr. Can you guys give me the number that we've spent as far as in capital improvements and, and maintenance, uh, for maybe last year, and then also our, the overall revenue of what you guys brought in. Yes, sir. I don't have that with me. We can get that for you. OK, great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate it. You just get that to staff, we'll get it out to the members. All right. And Senator Johnson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Marty, as you know, there were some Complaints after the, uh, razorback Golden Lions game a couple of weeks ago, uh, about the plumbing and some other problems at the stadium. Uh, is this, uh, WD&D contract, is this for anything related to that and, and if not, where are we on fixing the plumbing because obviously if we're gonna have games ormorial Stadium, the plumbing needs to work definitely. Yes, the, the plumbing was fixed the next day, as a matter of fact, the salt bowl was the next day. And it was fixed prior to the Salt Bowl, uh, and then the other, the other issue that was raised, uh, during the Razorback game was the, the, uh, air conditioning in the press box, and that was because someone opened a window and that was closed, and, but the air conditioning was never malfunctioning or turned off. Uh, once that window was closed, then, then, then it cooled in fresh air. But yeah, they, they, uh, Uh, the, the plumbing issue was, uh, fixed the next day. Yes, sir. I, I know that every Game if your team's playing is a big game. But next year, we will have the Red Wolves and the Razorbacks at War Memorial Stadium. Is there a plan to make sure everything works because we'll probably have pretty close, if not an absolute full house next year. Is that in the process? Well, absolutely, and I can tell you from the department of my job as part of tourism and also a member of the Warm World Stadium Commission that we're doing everything absolutely possible to, to prepare for that game because you're right, that is exciting games, a big game. And uh it's been a long time coming and we're excited to see it at the stadium. OK. Well, we'll be doing a follow up between now and then, but thank you for what you're doing on that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. Ms. Any other questions? Thank you, gentlemen for coming down. Seeing no other questions, uh, these items will stand reviewed and that takes us to items D3 intergovernmental contracts. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the next section we're going to review are the intergovernmental contracts. As I was preparing for my meeting, yesterday, I was notified that the first contract for your review today with the Department of Commerce, rehab Services. They have requested to pull this contract down from your review today. So that one is pulled and then beginning with item number 2, this is a contract with the Department of Health, with the University of Alabama at Birmingham. This is the First Amendment to an existing contract to increase funds for a pregnancy risk. Assessment monitoring system. Next you have a contract with the Department of Human Services, with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. This is the 2nd Amendment to an existing contract. It's to increase the scope of work for the Mid-South Summer School conference. Number 4, Department of Human Services with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. This is an amendment to an existing contract. For $3.7 million. This is for the substance abuse block grant prevention services across the state. Number 5, DHS with the University of Arkansas at Medical Sciences. This is the 5th Amendment to an existing contract, um, to provide for respiratory therapist services with UAMS and the Arkansas State Hospital. Number 6 with DHS and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. This is Amendment 3 to an existing contract. It's a federal program. For the continuance of the positive parenting program, which is an evidence-based parenting education program. Number 7, DHS with the University of Arkansas at Palm Bluff. This is the 4th Amendment to an existing contract to add funding for the supplemental nutrition assistance program, nutrition education services. Number 8, the Department of Public Safety division of State Police with the board of trustees for the University of University of Alabama. This is Amendment 9 to an existing contract for the move AR program and system. This is a virtual environment that is available to all law enforcement, um, that provides a number of platforms that they can access when they're out in the field. Item number 9 with the Department of Public Safety division of Arkansas State Police with the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. This is a partially federally funded contract. This is Amendment 3 to this contract. Um, And it has to do with the national highway traffic traffic Safety Administration. Item number 10, Department of Public Safety division of Arkansas State Police with the University of Arkansas Medical Sciences. This is Amendment number 6 to an existing contract. This is to add an additional year of services for their pharmacy reference pricing program. The last item in your intergovernmental contracts is number 11 with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock with the University of Wyoming. This is Amendment one to an existing contract for substance abuse block grant funds. And it, it has to do with planning and evaluation of training instruments. Those are the intergovernmental contracts. Thank you, Senator Rice, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, uh, DHS aging adults behavioral health. All right. get someone from DHS. Mitres, chief of staff, DHS, and depending on your question, we'll either bring Paula or Jay up here. OK, well, uh, My question's gonna. Focus on If this in any way could help. Residential care services. You know, to bring one of them up. They wouldn't want to do, what type of residential care that let me just, let me do a state. I made DHS a word from the secretary. And others aware of, of Residential care which does deal with people with mental. Health, uh, issues and, and help keep some people off the street. And just really basic stuff and I don't know that much about it. But we continue To say we've got to have good people in government and we have to uh raise salaries because we have to compete with the private sector. It's all true. But I keep seeing. Very needed services that have not gotten funding and increases in a long time and we expect them just to keep on going. And it can't happen. And there's gonna be results from that and that's what I've been ringing bells on a few different things, assisted living and in this too. So when I see 100% federal funding for a 3 day conference. And then I see 100% funding, uh, for a block grant and all. Is there something we're not asking for to the federal government. And I have some sometimes they say well the federal government didn't allow or didn't fund that and I what I found out sometimes we're not asking for something because we don't line it up with our priorities in Arkansas. And I, I, what I'm saying is these type services while they're not something we all would like to admit we, we are proud that we need. They are needed. And these communities are going to live with the results of us not funding them, is there anything in in these funds or other funds that you know that DHS can do. To help this because we're already constricting. The number of facilities over in my area. To say just keep maybe hopefully from keeping it from going under and moving people out of their communities to other places if they'll go voluntarily. Is there anything in these funds or other funds you know of that's bringing any help very soon. And you would before you answer that, introduce yourself and then you can answer Senator Rice's question. My name is Paula Stone. I'm the director of the Office of Substance Abuse and Mental Health for DHS. And, um, so all of the grants and programs that you see funded for substance abuse services on that list are federal funding from the substance abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. And, um, those funds are limited. They're block grant funds, um, and we do divide those up primarily they go out for, um, providers across the state that provide a full range of substance use disorder services to treat those individuals with substance use issues. Um, part of those services are residential services on the substance abuse side, uh, residential is about a 30 day program, but we also are trying to fund things like recovery community organizations. and prevention programs as well. Um, but for the residential service, um, providers. So we, we have talked a lot about, um, can we raise that rate for a day of residential service. So it is a block grant program so the services are, um, with the block grant, um, we would be able to serve fewer people if we raise the rate for that, um, which is something we can do. The, the piece of this that's hopeful though is, is Medicaid being Able to fund some of those services as well. So commercial insurance definitely funds substance abuse services, uh, in a much larger degree than, than anyone else in the state. So we reserved those funds for people that are uninsured or underinsured, and then we do have a request to, uh, CMS to allow us to begin paying for residential substance abuse services. So we hope to get approval on that, uh, within the. year and then we would be able to move some of those, um, Those people would be Medicaid eligible, could be paid for through Medicaid funding, so we would have more funding available for those who are truly indigent or for other services. And, and I totally want it to be for the ones who need it in and deserve it, not, not giving, uh, people, I don't know that you've got that many taking advantage of it, you might have that shouldn't be in there, but you say within the year, you're talking about within the rest of this year, within the fiscal year or we, we have, um, submitted an application to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for something called an institution for mental disease waiver. Because, um, Medicaid is not, we're not allowed to pay for, um, treatment services within something called an institution of mental disease which is defined federally defined as, um, more than 16 beds. That's primary purpose is to treat a mental health condition or a substance use disorder condition. So, CMS came around and said, we know that, um, these services are needed, short-term services, not long-term services, but short term. Services. So we submitted the application last winter. Uh, they are working through their applications. They let us know that they were a little behind on that. Uh, and so they have said that they would get to our application and work through that with us, um, so they had said that they would be able to, we have not started those conversations with them, even though they've accepted our application, but they should be able to start those conversations with us, um, my understanding is around January, which would then give us. Maybe another 6 months before we could implement. I appreciate anything you could do and I, I've, I've told the secretary this is when these, when these facilities close, you, you're not gonna have somebody just come flip a light switch on and get them again. There there's, there's a lot of investment it takes to do it. And when you don't, on the front end when you see somebody go out, you don't want to be the next to step up and somebody pulled the rug out from you and just when I see. These conferences like this, they may be needed, but I can see how this that much money right there could, could keep a facility or multiple facilities open. So I'd appreciate anything y'all could do to give emphasis on that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. Part of his question was, is there something we're not asking for? Is there something that we're not asking for are we missing out on anything that would help us with some of these issues? I think the big ask was the ask to for substance abuse in particular. is that big as to CMS for that waiver to allow us to use, um, Medicaid for the Medicaid beneficiaries to pay for that service. Um, because then we're using, um, our state dollars is match, uh, and then we can use those federal dollars, um, to expand services to people who are, are truly uninsured or for services that Medicaid or commercial insurance wouldn't pay, so that seems to be our, our biggest ask, but we are accepting all of our block grant dollars. Those are. Managed, um, federally and, and so there are no additional block grant dollars that, that we can ask for and then we've just applied for a grant and, um, so yeah, thank you. Representative Crawford, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being here. I just want to reiterate what uh Senator Rice is talking about, um, the owner, uh, Uh, 4 or 5 of these. communities or Residential facilities for mental health people. The owner lives in my district. So I'm hearing from her continually. She just had to close the one as you are aware, Mrs. Stone, in Paris because there were some, uh, because of the sewer system or something broke. But she has gone in debt. She can't go in debt anymore because of the low pay, uh, that Medicaid gives, which is $35 a day. When or something in that area, maybe a couple of dollars off. I know you guys since she had to close Short Mountain Lodge in Paris that you guys then were able to come up to $50 a day to help her with that. I guess part of my question is, why did she have to wait to close a facility for that to happen. And we have other places that she's in trouble on because she had to go into debt, as I said before, to pay the difference in what Medicare is reversing reimbursing Medicaid is reimbursing for her, um, people that live there. One is in Barla with 139 beds, Greenwood has 72 beds. Mulberry has 60 beds, short mountain had 62, but she's moved. Most of those, uh, to another location which is not their hometown. And then Clarksville, there are 70 beds. And I guess my question is, and I would just like to get it on the record. If these places close, that is over 400 people who are going to be out on the street. So I would ask for us as the government to begin to look at ways that we can help her. I know nobody wants to help her with what she's already gotten in debt on, but if we could do that. Because it's reimbursing what she's already paid, she would have the money up front then to continue to operate when things break, as we know they do. So I guess my question is. What do you see? In the future for these residential homes. Yes, and, and I think we're talking about Miss Linda Short. Is that if you want to bring her name up. I'm sorry, yes, I wasn't gonna do that, and I've had many conversations with Miss Linda, particularly through the years, but, um, and, and have talked to her several times, uh, over the last month. So, um, the facility that she runs, the type of facility that she runs is called a residential care facility. And so residential care facilities Bill one service and one service only, and that is called. Personal care. So they don't really build bill Medicaid for mental health services, although they accept people with a mental health conditions. And so, um, that's program also falls within in those federal regulations that I was just referring to called the Institution for Mental Disease. And so because she has facilities of more than 16 beds, she can't provide that mental health service in those facilities. Um, but she can partner with them. Mental health provider and provide mental health services offside of that facility, and then she can bill Medicaid for personal care services. And so that's the daily rate that you're talking about. So that daily rate isn't for the provision of mental health services is for personal care, which is a service that helps people, um, with all different kinds of disabilities, um, with, with their. Personal grooming, uh, feeding, those kinds of things. Um, so what we've been doing and working with, um, her and other owners of residential care facilities that have taken in people with mental health conditions is really looking to help them transition their business model to a new kind of business where, um, for, uh, a service called Therapeutic Communities for Mental Health individuals with mental health conditions, which has to be 16 beds or fewer, that Pays $350 a day. And so you can provide that full array of services. It's just been difficult for her to move from large units of like 40 people down to 16. So in working with her, I know that the people that she has left in that Paris facility, um, none of them are Medicaid eligible. So that's our big piece of work is to see why they're not Medicaid eligible. So she is, again, trying to build Medicare, their Medicare eligible bill Medicare for some of those services and They have a mental health condition, um, really making sure that, that, that we can provide those mental health services as well. So that's our work with, with, um, with that group of, um, or with that provider around residential care facilities, and I have, you know, some updates that I can give you, uh, as well on, on the work that in the direction that she's going to go in and talk to her, um, son-in-law who's the business manager of those programs as well. So we love that. OK. That when she continues to contact me, I have some information to give her. And that 16 bed, that's a huge jump from a large facility to 16, and that was done by the federal government, or was that done by the state that's a federal regulation that's been in place since the 60s. So I'm just confused on that one. Excuse me. Why it's just now affecting her. So I think that she has been, um, providing services again she has been partnering with a mental health provider, um, so she has all of her facilities very close to either, uh, adjacent to, uh, a clinic that's providing mental health services or, um, a mental health provider comes in, picks her people up in a van and takes them to get mental health treatment. And so she's had an adjustment in mental health provider, uh, and, and, and, in, in your same area, so I had gotten a call, uh, several months ago from the mental health provider, uh, who said, I'm no longer going to be able to partner, uh, and lease space, that space. And so I think that there were some issues there, um, with that, and then I just think, you know, when, when we really started trying to recognize residential care facilities as mental health providers. You know, if you. To provide a comprehensive service. We created that new service and got that approved back in. I think it was 2016, uh, that we got that approved or 2017, and, um, and started working with those providers to say, you can make one of two decisions, you know, you can, you can continue providing those services that you are providing and then partner with the mental health provider, um, as, as you've always done, or you can make that change. And so several of them have made the changeover. Some of them have decided that they would serve a different type of client. Uh, so each of them have kind of gone. In a different direction, but it, it has been a, um, we'd never had that service available before 20, I think we started paying for it in 2018 that $350 a day service, so we didn't have that available, um, and I think that they, you know, again, back to your point of moving to a six-bed facility that was a difficult decision for them to make, and I think she's going to make that on some of her facilities and then try to have those partnerships and others. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Representative. Members, any other questions for these two? Alright, thank you for coming down. Remember any other questions on the intergovernmental contracts? All right, seeing none without objection, these items with the exception of number one will stand reviewed. That takes us to item number 4. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Item D4 in your packet. If you're looking down at the bottom left hand side, it should begin on item D, page 15 of that section. These are the out of state contracts that are presented for your review today. Number one is with ASU. It's a contract with Andy Frane Services. This is an amendment to an existing contract to increase funds for temporary staffing services for ASU Jonesboro. 2, also with ASU is a contract with Point Heritage Development Consulting. This is a new contract, funded using cash funds for strategic plan consulting for the Arkansas State University. Number 3, the Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Commission. This is an amendment to an existing contract with the Northbridge Group Incorporated. This is to Funding for the state Clean Water survey? Number 4, Department of Commerce, ADFA. This is a contract with Horn LLP. This is a new contract. And it is for professional services of their emergency solutions grant program. Number 5 with the Department of Commerce, AEDC with Interlink Limited. This is a new contract that AEDC is requesting and it is for the operation of their new international office, and I believe there will be locations in Europe and in South Korea. Number 6 is the Department of Commerce with also with AEDC. This is a contract with JQWA Planning Group LLC. This new contract is for the development of a five-year plan for their community development block grant program. Number 7, Department of Commerce, Arkansas rehab Services with SHI International Corporation. This is the 3rd Amendment to an existing contract to add additional funding for the rehab. Case management system. Number 8 is the Department of Commerce rehab Services with the universal Protection Service LP. This is the 6th Amendment to an existing contract for armed security guard services. For rehab services. Item number 9 on page 17 you'll see is with the Department of Corrections. This is an original contract request with Wellpath LLC. You may recall this contract was proposed last month for review, so it has come back again for the committee's review in, in the same form. This is to provide comprehensive medical, dental, pharmacy, and mental health services for inmates under the care of the Department of Corrections. Number 10, Department of Corrections division of Community Correction. This is for satellite tracking of people LLC. This is, excuse me, Amendment 3 to an existing contract, and it is to provide electric monitoring of offenders through radio frequency tracking. Number 11, Department of Education, educational television division. This new contract with Totara Learning Incorporated. Um, is to help implement the Arkansas Ideas program, which as you all know is the online professional development program. For the state. Number 12 was with the Department of Finance and Administration, Management Services division with Phoenix Business Incorporated. This is an original contract, um, and it's to include their project management resources, SAP development staff, functional SAP subject matter experts and trainers for their management services. Number 13 is with the Department of Health, with the Center for Disease Detection. This is the 2nd Amendment to an existing contract for medical testing services? Number 14 also with the Department of Health. This is an amendment to an existing contract with Randsolve Incorporated. This is for a user friendly online platform that will help local health units to become electronic and um use online immunization forms and medical data. Number 15 is it with DHS. This is a contract with Arkansas Spanish interpreters. This is an amendment to an existing contract for language interpretation and transcription services for individuals seeking benefits from DHS. Number 16 with DHS. This is with Computer Aid Incorporated. This is Amendment 6 to an existing contract. This is for informationtechnologies, infrastructure support for DHS. Excuse me. Number 17 with the Department of Human Services, it was CSG Government Solutions. This is a new contract. For Arkansas Medicaid pharmacy program replacement project. Number 18 with DHS with Magellan Medicaid administration, LLC. This is a new contract for the Medicaid Enterprise Pharmacy System and Services? I'm now on page 21 of item D. Number 19 with the Department of Human Services with Dataman USA LLC. This is Amendment 8 to an existing contract, and this is to add funding for DHS's temporary employment services. And it's to provide temporary staff. Number 20 with the Department of Public Safety division of Arkansas State Police with Orum Incorporated? This is Amendment 1 to an existing contract. This is for cold case DNA genealogy testing, outsourcing. Number 21 is the Department of Public Safety State crime lab with National Medical Services Incorporated. This is a new contract. For postmortem laboratory testing services. Number 22 is the Department of Transformation and Shared Services, DIS with Karasoft Technology Corporation. This is Amendment 1 to an existing contract. And this is for 24 hour monitoring of security notifications and online security. Item number 23 is also with transformation and Shared Services DIS. And you may note that under the procurement method, this is an original contract that was procured by special procurement. So if you'll look in the back of your packet, there is a goldenrod. Letter in the back that the agency provided that justifies their reasoning for this special procurement. This is a contract with credential Engine Incorporated. It's a new contract for $75,000 for credential transparency description language, and registry. Item number 24 with the University of Arkansas system with AGB Search LLC. This is a new contract, and it is to provide an executive search and a recruitment service for the system to search for a chancellor of the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. Number 25 is with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock with international survey Associates. This is an Amendment 8 to an existing contract. And this is to provide support for the Arkansas Prevention needs assessment Survey? Number 26 with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. This is a new contract with Prevention Strategies LLC. And this is for the Arkansas Youth Drug Use Rejection Program. Which is targeting drug prevention for individuals aged 9 to 20 in the state. And the final Out of state contract for your review is number 27, the University of Central Arkansas with Madison National Life Insurance Company. This is an amendment to an existing contract for a long-term disability insurance coverage and services to Eligible employees, retirees, and dependents of UCA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. Thank you. We have several lined up, uh, Senator Hammer, you recognize? Can we start the Department of Corrections, please. All right, we could get someone down for the, the, uh, Department of Corrections. Good afternoon if you would, when you get seated, just, uh, press your button and introduce yourself, and then we can get on with the questions. Lindsay Wallace, secretary for the Department of Corrections. Wade Hodge, Department of Corrections. Chad Brown, CFO of Department of Corrections. Go ahead, Senator. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is this contract, uh, gets through this week. It's supposed to go into effect October 1st, correct? Yes, sir. That's correct. Have you been in discussions with well past to Wellpath to know how um. Uh, manpowered they are to be ready to take this on because in previous discussions, there's a little bit of concern about would they be able to get, uh, stood up for all their help and so can you just update us on that? Yes, sir. As far as I know, there should not be any issues. Um, we are continuing to have conversations with the mental health staff that work for the department. I know Wellpath has had some initial discussions with them. Um, I'm sure you can understand state employees are, are a little hesitant to Agree to go to work for a company when there's not a contract in place. Um, Well Pat is here, um, if you would like to have them, um, speak to that as far as the mental health, everything else is already in place because this has been a long-term contract that we've had in place with Wellpath. So the only thing would be the mental, mental health component of latitude that's given to them from the time the contract starts up to the time that they should be fully staffed in the mental health, what would you anticipate? As far as You're gonna give them a little grace, 30 days, 60 or what grace are you going to give them? Yes sir, we will certainly, um, allow them grace to figure out how to implement that programming. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. Uh, next we have Representative Kavanaugh, you recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mine is actually for DHS Medical Services. All right. Hang on just a second. Bar. Representative Call, we're gonna skip you for just a second and go to Senator Hester, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I got a, I got a certified letter in the mail from a company called Wexford Health from their CEO and he said he was watching these, um, uh, these hearings last time and, uh, he says that he bid and he was lower on price than Wellpath. But y'all just preferred someone else and we were told over and over and over that Wellpath was the cheapest bid. So can you give me some clarification on that? Sure, Senator Hester, I'll be happy to start that. Um, my chief of staff actually served on the scoring committee, so he can add and we've also got our procurement here, our procurement chief here who can add some additional information. So we did the traditional RFP route. And so what that meant was we scored on the technical proposal. So we had a committee that scored the technical proposal packet, um, the top scoring based on Those 3, I'm sorry, based on the top vendors that bid on that, we took the top 3 to an oral, um, interview, if you will, presentation. And then we opened pricing, so I can tell you the top 3 scoring from the technical packet was wellpath, vital core, and Centurion, and then we looked at their scoring and then that was averaged into the overall proposal. So I'm not certain about the pricing for Wexford, but what I can tell you is they didn't score in the top 3 for their technical proposal packet. Services explain to me what technical means outside of it's, I prefer to use the people we've used for 10 years because that's how we always do it. Sure. Certainly, we, the RFP required that all vendors submit a written proposal to us, um, how they propose to go about providing the care that's required in all of the services, medical, dental, um. Uh, mental health, uh, and pharmacy and that thick proposals. And so that's what we call the technical packet, so each person on the evaluation committee scored all 5 technical packets and then we selected the top 3 to make those oral presentations as a secretary indicated. And I can provide a little bit more information as far as the percentages on the, um, scoring of the technical proposals we looked at their company profile, human resources, their employee stabilization and retention of current medical services staff, um, comprehensive medical services was in there. Program support and then safety sanitation and how they deal with infectious diseases. Those portions were all weighted a certain percentage, and that's how we arrived at the technical score. I'm, I'm under no assumption that we're not going to. Review this contract today and pass it out Friday. I understand the situation we're in. But just first of all, can you tell me what the difference would be? Between that Wexford bid and the bid that they got it, how much is technical matter to us is what I'm saying. Um, so the technical proposal and the overall scoring, it was a maximum total score of 1000 technical proposal was 700 and then the lowest cost was $300. So I don't, I, I feel like I need to have our, our procurement chief to come up. Do we prefer working with the people we currently work with that we have that. After you just pushed your button and you can introduce yourself and then answer Senator Hester's question. Heather Bailey, Chief Procurement officer for the Department of Corrections. I'm over here. Oh Center. So yeah, like I just like I don't know if you have it on per per inmate per day cost or what, like, what is the difference in what? These people, because I'm trying to understand for it matters about this contract but also about next time like how much does the pricing matter? So it's 30% 30%. We only opened the pricing for the top 3. how it worked is Each of the 5 committee members individually scored all 5 proposals. And so after they all put their scores in at consensus, that's how it figured out the top. 3, based on what they scored. OK, how much money is the difference between Wexford and the people that got it Wexford's, um, financial proposal because the way procurement processes are, we don't open, um, we only open the top three. So I have not opened their financial proposal because they were not in the top 3. You only opened the top 3. Do you know what were the bids on the top three? Were they close? well past the lowest price of the top 3? They were the lowest cost. They scored the most points. They got the full 300 points. And then, um, Vitalor came in next with 242 points and then Centurion came in last with 215 points. OK, but of the three bids that you did open Wellpath was the lowest cost. OK. Thank you. Um, that's all. Thank you, Senator. All right, Senator Gilmore, you're next. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I know corrections folks would be disappointed if I didn't ask questions, so here I am. Um, so I, I just want to follow up on that really quickly, um. Uh So on the technical score, they didn't even come close, is what I'm hearing. So you didn't even open. Their financial bid. That's correct. OK, so we don't. We really just don't even know. Correct. OK. OK, um, at previous meetings there were discussions about bonding, um, what, what did we find out, uh, with some of those questions, what, what is the bond amount that is Um, Be held on this company. So I've had some discussions with Wellpath and they're still working on getting that bond. They're saying they're having trouble getting the bond because they do not have a signed contract in hand. So they're having difficulties getting that, uh, but they're like Mr. Secretary Wallace said, they're here then and they can probably give you a little bit more detail into that process. OK, with the chair's permission, we'll get them up at the appropriate time. Uh, and then last question, I'll get back in the queue, Mr. Chair. um, I, I believe that Wellpath has, and this may be a question for Wellpath, I believe they have, uh, an RFP out with for, uh, pharmacy, uh, uh, as I understand, um, if, if this is reviewed, does that continue to go out or, or will that get pulled back and then redo it? I'm just sort of curious what that looks like since they're currently a vendor with Department. Senator, that their RFP process is not a part of ours, so I would be under the assumption that if this doesn't get approved today. I'm not sure if that RFP would still exist on their side of the equation, but I think, I believe that would be a better question for them. OK, uh, I may have some questions for them, but I will, uh, get back in the queue, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. Senator Irvin, you recognize. Thank you. I'm, I'm just a little confused because you said that pricing was a 30% consideration. Yes, ma'am, but, um, as far as the process goes of the top of the top 3, we didn't even get to the pricing for vendors if they didn't meet the technical proposal pricing is actually 0% in this process. And I have a problem with that, because you did not even look at the pricing proposals that were submitted by all of the vendors. And so technically, Pricing is at 0% of consideration for this RFP process because you can't say to me that it's 30%. It's 30% of the top three, at which it was at 0% consideration. The way the procurement process works. And you can bring out, uh, Ms. Patterson from OSP to clarify that that's a good idea it's that. They have to meet a certain goal as it stated in the RFP to make it to the 2nd round, and it's clearly stated in the RP, the language. So if they didn't meet that first goal, then we don't even look at pricing until the pricing is part of the 2nd. Uh section that's reviewed. That it's in 3 parts. I, I understand that, but honestly, don't know why anybody would submit and go through submitting a, a proposal for an RFP if they weren't qualified as a vendor in the first place. I mean, that's just not something that this at this level of this contract, I could see that maybe with a smaller contract, but at this level that we're talking about, of this type of services for the state of Arkansas, they're not gonna spend the time and the money to create an RFP and even apply if they aren't capable of meeting the technical requirements for the state of Arkansas. Do you, of the ones that were rejected, are they operating in any other state right now? Could you even tell me? Wexford operating in other states. I do have that in my notes. Um, I don't have it. I just have a few that I know where they're operating. I know Florida is one of them. Florida is one of them. OK, so. So again, your techni, I mean, they could have absolutely met. The technical requirements. It was just based on the score of the committee that was selected, at which point 0%. A consideration was given to Price. And that that is a true statement. That, yes, when it, yes, like that, it is, but they have to meet the requirements to get to the pricing component of it. The requirements based on the RFP that was created score based in the RFP and it's not very high. I mean, it's at the standard, um, number that OSP provides. And so it wasn't what I would call high. It was very competitive, but they did not meet that number. Based on the way the RFP was written and the subjectivity of the scores. I think it would be better if, um, Ms. Patterson or someone from OSP. I probably would agree with that. I'm, I'm not being rude. I'm just trying to understand the process. I think that we have a flawed process, to be honest, because I feel like at this level of a contract, anybody that's gonna apply for this is going to be able to deliver this service. And so, In my opinion, I think price should be a part of the initial consideration for anybody that submits a proposal because I understand that we create the RSP. The RFP is written internally. Is that correct? You can stay. I'm sorry. Ma'am, if you would push your button and introduce yourself, and then I'll let you answer that question. Yes, I, sorry, sorry, hi, um, Tanya Freeman with the Office of State Procurement, um, Director Patterson is out of office. So the RFP, the request for proposal process is written by the agency. Sometimes we contract that out I understand perhaps with somebody with expertise to help us write the RFPs, but aren't the RFPs written internally by the agencies? OK. So, so it's based on the questions that they write down and how it's been answered for the scores. Yes. And then the scores are a team of whomever that's put together to score these proposals. Yes, right, but the, but the proposals are. The RF are they they're responding to the RFPs. And the questions that are proposed and written by the agencies. My issue is, why, why would we go to the top 3 before we ever considered price. Is that part of the, is that a is that absolutely clear in the law, or is that by choice per agency, per RFP. is by per agency and per RFP that is not, um, currently how the central office does RFPs, um, this, this was done in the traditional RFP and there was nothing wrong with that. It's still definitely abides by procurement law, um, currently, the RFP process that we use now, the MAP process opens pricing and provides that to the evaluators at that time. So we have kind of changed that process, um, but the, the traditional process that we always used up until a couple of years ago did withhold opening the pricing so that it did not. Um, Skew the evaluator's technical scores. So they got a true, just technical evaluation. Thank you. I, I Thank you, Senator. All right, um. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Uh Over here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, last time when, when we heard on, uh, this contract, we discussed some about the percentage of the contract that will stay in Arkansas with Arkansas vendors and businesses. Can you, can you restate that? That again for the committee. Yes, sir. Representative Beatty, uh, last time I testified, 68% of this contract will be kept in state. Uh, 55% of that is based on the labor cost, 13% is based on patient care, uh, and that, that sums up the 68% that will stay in state. OK. And then I, I, I also want to, I, I, I think it's gonna be, um, probably prudent to hear from Wellpath as well. So I'm gonna ask that they would come to the table, uh, to kind of follow back up on what Cy Gilmore was, um, uh, discussing, and that that was the bids, uh, bid process for some of these contracts that they're putting out to Arkansas business. should this, um, contract be, uh, reviewed and approved, uh, and then my, my last ask is that I know we have some members of the board of corrections here. I also have a, a question for board of Corrections. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We we'll get well path up here in just a minute. Let's go through this group first and I'll, you'll get back in the queue and I'll get back. I'll get back in the queue. That's all I have for this group. Thank y'all. Representative Senator Hammer, is your question for this group? You recognize. Thank you. I want to go back to the technical portion of the discussion and the young lady on the end, I'm sorry, I didn't get your name again. I'm sorry. Um, I think you were, if I didn't misunderstand you, I thought you used the word discretionary, um. With regards to the, it's a 5 member committee that made the decision on the technical aspects of, of the contract, correct? Do you know, do you know what the point spread was between the 5. I have that. OK, I have it in my notes, um, for the total score counting the um. The weighted score. and the cost score, the total score, would you like just the weighted score or the total score for each one. They were relatively close. So they were. There was no outliers that. We're, we're blatantly obvious. They were all pretty tight. It was a pretty tight score, yes, sir. They're all less than, um, the, the top one and the one behind it is less than 60 points. he's talking about. Yes, they were all close. They were within one or two points of each other on the individual scores. On the technical technical stuff, yes, sir, they were all very close. Senator Hester brought into the equation, they didn't what was the spread difference between them and we. I don't remember off the top of my head, um, because, um, I know the ones that were the top 3 pretty well, but I don't know the. But we can get it to you. I have it at the office. And, and this probably be a discussion down the road, but I'm just curious as far as the, and no offense to the 5, no offense when I make the statement. The competency of the 5 to make decisions on the technical aspect of the contract, what qualifies them to make that decision. They chosen based on their areas of expertise. We had a legal component, um, Chief of Staff Wade Hodge, and then we had, um, 2, we had 3 medical components that were on this. And then we had a board member. Um, the 3 medical people, one of them, um, Is the health services administrator for the department. And then we had two mental health people to make sure that the mental health component was strong enough that That met the vision that some of the people have in office that the company in question at Senator Hester introduced the conversation they provide services to. Uh, Department of Correction in Florida. Yes, sir. That's what my notes have. The thing I find perplexing is how they could qualify in the state of Florida that is much larger than us and pass on the technical aspect down there and maybe it's not a comparison of apple to apple in the procurement process that may be part of the challenge, but that they are, they're qualified to do business in Florida, but they were excluded from being able to do business in Arkansas. Hammer, I'll have to check to see what states they do business in. I have written down as Centurion providing services for them, so I want to double check that information. I know, um, Illinois is one of the Department of Corrections that they service, but I would have to look to tell you everything else. All right, if you would provide that to the chair and chair, could we get that, please, and I'll hold up now. Thank you. If you just get that to staff, we'll get a Senator, uh, Petty, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is going back to the, uh, procurement process and I want to just kind of chase this just a minute. The the range of, of 1 through 5 on the technical side was a score of 700. Is that correct? And of the 5, the top 3 got listed just because of their technical score. It wasn't that the other two were not technically qualified. It was just they had the lowest scores of the 5. Is that, that is correct. All right. And that's what, uh, I can't remember who asked the question. That range between the top score at 700 or 650 or whatever and the bottom score of whatever. Do we, do we have that? I have it at the office and I can provide it. So my, my, my follow up question then is, and this is sort of to Senator Irvin's question, is it possible, I mean, we have a flaw, obviously, it sounds like. In the procurement system, but if, if, say, for example, someone scored a 690, and that was top, and then someone scored a 590, and that was the bottom. That's the range, and I don't know, maybe it's 70,040, you know, that a bigger range, but is it possible that the range was so narrow that if all 5 were considered in the evaluation of the 300, I'm assuming that Will Path got the perfect 300 because they were the lowest, but if somebody else was evaluated compared to them, then maybe they had a higher score and bridge that gap, and they actually had the lowest overall, uh, package or, or, or, uh, the best overall proposal with pricing included, is it possible that that could have played out? It's possible. However, if they had all been that tight, if there had not, if there had been a very small difference between the number 4 and the 3 ranked, then we would have brought the number 4 in as well, but there was enough difference that we didn't feel like we needed to meet that, bring them in, because we do it, I don't remember what the percentage is, but it's very small and they were not close enough to the 3rd ranked person to be able to bring them in. OK, just one more follow up. So, If, if 4 or 5 were in there, is, is the range going to be for the, for the, the price? Is the range going to be, uh, how is that determined is it based on your, your, uh, uh, pricing compared to everyone else or or uh how, how was that? How is that determined pricing is determined, and it outlines it in the bed is whoever has the lowest of how many ever we open, gets the 300 points. It's a percentage that's calculated inside the bid, uh, spreadsheet. That goes in after that and so it's. I've got it. I can explain it better in email than I can because it's pretty technical because you have to kind of have to see it. But if they had, if all 5 pricing had been open, it it could have flipped. It's just we only open the top three. you get that information to staff, um, let's see. All right, Senator Gilmore, assuming yours is still for this group. OK, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Question on, on procurement process, just. Go dumb it down here for my sake. So you look at the technical scoring without even opening. The price Side of it, which is 30% of the overall score. Correct? Yes, that's correct. So we don't even know what the scores are until we look at the technical side of things, which just seems a little bit crazy and I'm not saying that this is Department of Correction fault or whatever. It just seemed very odd to me that this is what we would do. Because. Something of this magnitude and this price. We're not even looking at the prices until we evaluate the technical side. I, I don't know that that's a very good process for the taxpayers of Arkansas. And that's very concerning to me. maybe you can explain it better than what we've already heard. Maybe I'm totally missing something, but please go ahead. For For us P. Can I, can I clear up that this is not our current process that we are using, uh, statewide. Right. We did not, um, the statewide office did not participate in this particular solicitor real quick, so we changed the process for this DOC did this process on their own using the traditional RFP process that we used to use in the central office. How, how is, how is that possible? There are allowed to, there is a, um, delegation that allows agencies to do their own RFPs currently. We are looking at rolling that back. Oh, I think we should. I mean, I, I'm sorry, again, I'm not, I'm not. Faulting corrections here and and if they're following process, they're following process. I'm just thinking that's a really terrible process, um, and, and I, it's just, it's hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that you don't even look at 30% of something. And understand what we're, what we may be missing out on that could be cost savings to the taxpayer. Mr. Chair, I, I'll have more questions. I'm gonna get back in the queue and let someone else. Ask how is the process different that you use from what they used. We currently, the, the most advantageous proposal process allows us to open all the proposals and the pricing and any, um, ancillary documents and provide those to the evaluators so they have a full picture of what they're evaluating. Before we took a perspective of we wanted them to have the true technical score. The process that DOC used was the process in place statewide up until a couple of years ago. It is what we subscribe to, um, we have just updated that process. That we use now because we do see the value in evaluators seeing the cost at the same time as the technical. A bitter doesn't make it through the first round, which is the technical part of it. Does that necessarily mean they're just not technically qualified to do it or not as technical, technically qualified to do it to someone else. also to clarify a point that made that was made earlier, bidders or vendors do submit proposals when they are definitely not qualified to participate in a contract with the state. Sometimes they just want to throw their hat in the ring to get some experience and yeah, submitting proposals. They may not even have the actual experience. It's required to, um, to do the contract as required in the RFP, um, but in the most advantageous proposal process also, we don't typically do a top 3 any longer. Everybody moves forward to the interview process, um, we, we, we don't cut them out unless they're absolutely not qualified to move forward. My original thinking as I'm listening to this was why would you open the pricing part of it if they're not technically qualified to do the job. But But what you're saying is they could be technically qualified, just not as qualified, maybe as the top 3 or however many you picked. That's kind of one of the reasons behind the RFP to be able to look at how much experience they have and what their technical capabilities are. They may be technically qualified, they meet the minimum experience or certification requirements, but they may not have as much as vendor B say. No, thanks for the clarification. Senator Hickey, uh, your question for this group? a lot of questions. I know the boy you're right, yeah, nobody down here does anything on their own, but I know the guy that worked on this procurement stuff and we had a committee that met for a year. I guess from you, ma'am, Ms. Freeman, was that correct? All right. Are you telling me they're not, that they are not under the statute that we developed, is that what you're telling me? No, they are under the statute, and they, they followed procurement law. I don't think so. Uh, it looks like to me there's not a flaw in our procurement. Process looks like to me that we're circumventing our statute. Because what the way we wrote this. Uh, and I don't know any of these folks. Let me just go ahead and say that out right now. This company that Senator Hester had, Did you all say that they weren't qualified? Was that ever said? OK, so they were qualified. So our statutes the reason that we did that years ago is what we had was a bunch of agency folks down here that were saying. We're putting 0% in or 1% in or whatever it was for price just so they could steer stuff to their buddies. And the reason that we put 30% in is we we wanted to know that that that was there but it says that you must, you must. Have the 30% in there. So if you're not considering If you're not even considering them, then you're not following the statute. This is just a direct circumventing of that statute is what this is, uh, I have never, how, how many people, how many agencies do we have in this state right now that have figured this out and are just saying oh we're just going to divide these up and do the technical first and if we don't want to open the other ones with the prize. How many, how many other ones are doing that? How many have you seen? I'm, I'm sure that there are quite a few that are still using. Have you seen them? Yes, we post them to our website occasionally and you are allowing them to do that. They, I mean, it, it currently follows procurement process procurement. How does it follow it if they must do 30%. I can actually pull that out and send that to your staff if you'd like, um, we can because as long as the process is outlined in the RFP, then they, the award process is outlined, then they can actually, but I will look into that. I appreciate it because I don't, I don't think that's so, I don't think that's so at all. And, uh, I'm one member of this legislature. I guarantee that was never ever the intent of this legislature whenever it passed that. That what we would do is somehow figure out a way that we wouldn't even consider a price. Now, I will go to one point and say that if somebody is not, uh, qualified to bid, of course you can throw them out or whatever if they don't meet the technical, but you just sit here and told me that these people met the technical, again, don't have a clue who they are, heard that they may operate in other states, but to figure out a way to circumvent the things so we don't even consider their price, which is some of our other legislators have said is all coming out of taxpayer money is is past ridiculous to me. And I, I know I get pretty aggravated down here, but we'd literally, literally had a year's worth of meetings to try to get this procurement. Process right and then this is the type of stuff we hear is very aggravating. I appreciate the latitude, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator, Senator Gilmore. You recognize? Senator Hammer, you recognized. Thank you, uh, Lindsay, I want to direct this question to you. Why did the department choose the process that you did given what was just shared as far as working with procurement and doing it as it was testified just a minute ago. So, um, we started working on this RFP. It's obviously changed since, uh, I've been here talking to you all about this several different times, but we started working on this in, uh, where's, where's my date set? In like October of 2021. I'm not sure when the map process came into being, but, um, when we put this initially out in September of 2022. Um, OSP, um, I think did help. Us with the process of that. You facilitated it did everything because I know you were in a lot of those meetings with us. Um, when we come to July of 23 and we're to the point where we've got to figure out how to do this again, issue a proposal because we weren't able to move forward with the, the one from September of 22. We were most familiar with the RFP, traditional RFP process. We had never, to my knowledge, use the map process and this was a huge. And we didn't know enough about it. And that at the time, I was not in this role whenever we decided that, but at the time, that was the, the reason why we wanted to go the traditional route because it's more, we know the outcomes that we want. That's part of my understanding of what the traditional RF RFP process is, you know, the measures, you know what you want to get out of the contract. The map process, there's far more, uh, latitude in negotiations. And we knew the services we wanted to provide. And that was our rationale in terms of the reasoning why we wanted to go the traditional route versus the map process. Who made the decision to go the traditional versus the other process. I want to say that would have been former Secretary Profiri and the board. That would have been a decision that the secretary would have been driving and I wasn't the secretary at the time that that was put out. Did going and the young lady on the end from procurement. I'm sorry. Did you give them advice? That you need to look at this differently based on the change because it sounds like the, the, the, they were going down that path. Made the decision based on your testimony you just gave. Did you give them? Advice that you need to look at this differently in order to incorporate what Senator Hickey said. Um, it wasn't specifically to incorporate what Senator Hickey said, but we did discuss it in terms of what happened with the last effort and, um, our take was that MAP would be the, the, the newer RFP process would be the better way to go, but they had their concerns with using that over traditional. So the department. Went against your advice and your role of procurement, is that what I heard you say? They use their experience, yes, to make that decision on their own. Yes. But you advised them differently. Yes, OSB did advise. Had they gone with your advice, would we know? With the other company have been allowed to submit their bids so we would know the price difference. At all pricing would have been opened, yes, and on the initial it's kind of in a black box or a secret box that we don't know because. Um, yes. OK then, then the other question I have is going down the path that they went down, did that give Wellpath and inside advantage. In order to get that contract because of the technical score. Did they, did they have any advantage because of the process that they chose to go down that would have given Wellpath and inside track to get the contract. I wouldn't think so, but that would be impossible for me to know without looking at what the scoring was or what the cost was, um, and, and I don't know what that is at this point. Is there any reason why you wouldn't look at that to determine that? Yeah, I have no problem taking a look at that. I'd like to ask that that get shared with them and, um, I don't know, it'll end up in this committee or somewhere else, but it needs to end up somewhere. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you. Senator Gilmore. 3 To You're recognized. So can, can you point me to Where in the rules that allow For this, this is for Department of Corrections. If, if this is, if this is OSP rule, I'd I'd like to, I'd like to figure out where that is. And, and if there's a statute. I don't have that information in front of me right now, but I can grab it. OK, well, who handles procurement for you? I wouldn't expect you to, so. Ma'am. I handle it. I don't have it with me today. And I can provide it. Can you provide it before Friday? Yes, sir. I can provide it when I get back to the office tonight because I just want to be really clear on this. We're, we're sort of in a rock and a hard place here. Because we understand that we have to provide medical coverage for our inmates. That we that are in our care we're responsible for. It's, there's 8th Amendment implications for that just so everyone's listening. But this is a pretty big deal that we just stumbled upon today. I hope it's not as big as we think it is. But right now, it seems like it's really big. And it's a lot of money at stake because of it. So with that, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. Can you may have said this, but do you know what the monetary difference was between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place. On the 3 that you did, was it 3, you reviewed past the first round? How much of a price difference was there in just those three? So for the overall 10 year pricing for Wellpath, it was 1.5 billion, um, vital core was 1.9 billion Centurion was 2.1 billion. Those were the prices to bids were accepted 5. So there's 2 that you didn't look at costs, right? And there's no way to know now what what those. Cost figures were on the two that you didn't score sheets, the bids, we will, we can, I think, I don't know, I don't we. I don't know if it's appropriate, but I mean if it's really close to what Wellpath is and it's kind of. Pointless, what we're talking, well, anyway. I will get Senator Irvin. You're recognized eventually. And you actually have a motion. Um, at the, at the proper time, but. I have, I have a motion that I'd like to hold this until Friday. I understand the implications, but if you're asking me to take a vote right now, it's gonna be no. Because of the circumvention of the law and the intentionality of this legislature and bypassing and the fact that Price was a 0% consideration. That is not fair and not right to the taxpayers of the state of Arkansas. So my motion actually have three part. I want. I want to hold this until Friday because I understand we have to provide healthcare and I understand what Senator Gilmore said, but I would vote no right now if we're trying to review this. Um, And then I want OSP any contract that is using this process. To be flagged for this committee. Moving forward. We got to stop this. Um, and I want a report and documentation from OSP and BLR on when this process that allowed this. Lack of consideration of pricing, how it began. And when it began, and under what authority? And I want that. In a report to this committee. And that is my motion. Just hang tight. We've got some more questions, um, Senator Irvin, the staff, I believe, has notated the two requests you have of, of Department of Corrections. I'll come back to you for your motion. OK. Senator Hammer, you recognize it. Thank you, Lindsay, for the record. I just want to clarify the timeline. Did the, the negotiations of this contract and the discussion at the very beginning of this contract, did it not proceed, Mr. uh, proceed Joe. Here for Mr. Purfoy. OK, so initial, the initial discussions for the, the RFP that was issued in September of 22 that was ultimately canceled. That did predate, uh, Secretary Profiri. Yes, but when I'm sorry. I'm sorry, go ahead. That's OK. That would have been Secretary Graves that did the traditional path back in 2021. I do not know when the map process came into being. I'm, I'm not, I'm not. versed enough in that or the procurement laws to understand that. But the second time around when we canceled the initial RFP, um, and we had to start over. It would have been Secretary Profire and the board of Corrections within their purview. Mm. I think that the, I believe that that was profirior. I may be mixed up on my timelines. I will find that out and, and tell you, but that's how I remember it. I just want to get established that this all started under. The director, secretary before Joe. And then did not Joe pulled it back, didn't he? Uh, it was a, yes, it was a decision after the administration came in after Governor Sanders came into office due to the cost, um, yes, it was pulled down. OK. All right, that's why I wanted to get established when it all actually began was preceding Joe. All right, thank you. Thank you, Senator, and Representative Kavanaugh, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for clarification, if we don't review this, and we go in, because we all know we got to provide medical services. So how is medical services provided? To negotiate we would have to negotiate an extension of the existing contract, I believe, because our contract runs out at the end of September. We will be without a, a contract to provide medical services and who is the current provider. So we would have to do an extension with Wellpath. Have we not already done one extension with Well Pass because 2 because we couldn't come to any agreement on the contract. And is that extension not more expensive than doing a contract? I would assume it probably would be. OK, thank you. All right. Thank you, Representative. Uh, so the question I had was on finding out the remaining two. Bidders, how close their price was to well I don't know if that's even appropriate, but if you could find out if that's something that is appropriate to share or even look at. I'd like to know that before Friday. Yes, sir, we will get that to you. OK. Uh, no other questions in the queue for this group, um, without objection, we're going to review all of the contracts and the out of state contracts with the exception of the Wellpath contract, which is number 9. Uh, on page 17 of your book. So without objection, those will be reviewed. Senator Irvin, you're recognized for your motion. Yeah Thank you, Mr. Chair. I make a motion that we hold this particular contract number 9, Department of Corrections until Friday. Um, I also make part of my motion number 2 is to have a report and documentation provided from the Office of State Procurement and Bureau of Legislative Research on the legislation around procurement and when this process that's been referred to began and how it began, and, and when and under whose authority. Um, and then the third, uh, part of the motion would be any contract that's using that process where the agency makes the determination to circumvent, um, pricing and just go off of technical scores before they look at pricing as a component. Any contract in any agency that's using that be flagged for this committee so that we have that information. Senator, let's do this Two ways because I'm not 100% sure that's a proper motion. Uh, your motion to hold it till Friday will get to first and then we'll do request on the second part. Is that OK with you? All right. Members, you've heard the motion to hold, uh, the contract for Wellpath until Friday and we have a second. All those in favor sign I saying aye, opposed the. Just call the wrong. Mhm Yeah, call the roll. All members, I will call the roll beginning with the Senate. Senator Gilmore? Representative Beatty. Senator, Senator, Senator Gilmore, yes. Representative Beatty. Representative Beatty, no, Senator Hammer. Senator Hammer, yes. Representative Kavanaugh. Representative Kavanaugh, no. Senator Hester. Yes. Senator Hester, yes. Representative Cozart. Senator Irvin. Representative Kenneth Ferguson. Senator Ledding. Representative Jean. Senator Payton. Representative painter. Senator Petty Senator Rice confirming your vote was no. Thank you. Chairman Wardlaw, No. Senator Wallace. Representative Womack? He's not. OK. Yep. Excuse me, members. As an alternate for Representative Cozart. I'm going to call the role for Representative Holcomb. If he wishes to vote, second alternate. Um, as an alternate for not voting Representative Ferguson. I'm going to call the first alternate for Representative Wooldridge. Or second alternate Representative Nicks. Our members Uh, after the roll call vote, the motion has failed. Without objection, we'll review item 44, number 9. What's your objection? Senator Hester, my apologies, you're recognized. Just objection. All right, noted. Senator Irving, did you have something? You good? I remember you having a objection to uh reviewing this item, so we're gonna have to take a vote on whether this item is reviewed or not. All those in favor are reviewing this contract for Wellpath item number 9 signified by saying, I. Opposed. Thank you members. I'm calling the roll. To review the Wellpath contract. I'll begin with the Senate again. Senator Gilmore, Representative Beatty. Yeah. Senator Hammer? Representative Kavanaugh. Senator Hester. Representative Cozart. Not seeing Representative Cozart, calling his first alternate Representative Les Warren. Not seeing Representative Warren, calling a second alternate, Representative Holcomb. Senator Irvin. Representative Kenneth Ferguson. Not seeing Representative Ferguson calling the first alternate, Representative Wooldridge. Not seeing Representative Wooldridge calling the second alternate representative Nicks. Senator Ledding, Chairman Jean. Representative Peyton, or excuse me, Senator Payton. Representative painter. Speaker Shepherd. Chairman Rice, Chairman Wardlaw. Senator Wallace. Members, uh, the vote is. In the affirmative, this item stands reviewed. That takes us to item number 5 in-state contracts. Oh, hold on. My, my apologies, Senator. Let's hear them again. You can. OK, I'll make my other motion, which is that we get a report and documentation from the Office of State Procurement and BLR on when this process it's been talked about today, uh, began and how and under what authority, um, and then the second part is any contract that's using this process of, uh, not considering price from the onset of the vendors that submit for RFPs, uh, that we be flagged for this committee. Moving forward. All right. Thank you, Senator members. You've heard the motion, uh, all, and we have a second. Thank you. All those in favor sign I was saying aye. All right, discussion. Let's do that too. Why not? Senator Gilmore, you recognized. Thank you for the latitude, Mr. Chair, and you're doing a great job today, by the way. I know this is a little complicated for all of us, um, I, I want to stay, and I, I second this motion. I agree with this, and I appreciate my colleague, Senator Irvin for, uh, making the motion on the previous and now this one, and I will state, um, I think this bears more discussion. I'm giving notice to the chair that I intend to pull this Friday for more discussion when we actually have members in the room. If you look here, we don't have very many people here, and that's disappointing. I understand everyone's busy. So I'm fine with moving this discussion, hence my vote to Friday. Uh, Mr. Chair, you have notice of that. I, I hope that when you read the report that you'll give me some time to ask for it to be pulled. You plan to be here Friday? Uh, we'll be here Friday. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Uh, we have. Representative Beating, is this for discussion? It is, you're right. Could we restate that motion, please. I'm happy to restate this motion. This motion is that this committee, the review subcommittee, which is supposed to be in charge of procurement of contracts and understanding all the ins and outs of contracts and how they're procured and who also sat through that year-long process as a member of this legislature. When we crafted the legislation that we need a number one, a report to this committee. I don't want documentation sent to the chairs and sent out to the members. Nobody will look at it. I want to report to this review subcommittee about when this process from the Office of State Procurement, and I want BLR to also be a part of this report so that they can clearly state what the legislation is and the rules and give us a timeline of any rules that were promulgated from the. Legislation, but that this committee here a report about this process that we just discussed that the Department of Corrections utilized in order to not look at price from the onset of the RFP process. In other words, 0% consideration was given to Price. That was not the legislative intent of that procurement. Legislation that this legislature passed. And so that's the first part of my motion. The second part of my motion is, since we have discovered that this process was utilized by the Department of Corrections for this, this contract, what other contracts are there out there by agencies that have also used this process of, of a 0% pricing consideration from the onset of the RFP process. And I want those contracts to be flagged for this committee. Moving forward. By the Office of State Procurement. That's my motion. Thank you for that. I, I guess as a member of this committee and, and I guess a relatively new member of this committee. Um, my assumption, serving on this committee that all the contracts that, that, that come, uh, to the committee for review. Have followed proper procurement rules as supervised by OSP. So I would not think that we would have contracts coming to this committee that had not followed the rules if someone at OSP is looking at those contracts, um, So based on that, some, somewhat, I kind of disagree with your emotion that Our job is to review the contracts, not to break down and, and, and take over the role of, of actually scoring and awarding the contracts. So if they're circumventing the process that, that we drafted as a legislature, then that's a problem that we need to deal with, but that needs to be dealt with through OSP, um, so that, that's my only concern. OK. Thank you, Representative, Yes. In response to that, I'm not in my motion. I'm not at all suggesting that this committee take over the review of the scoring process. I'm talking about the RFP process, and you're making an assumption. I would make that same assumption, but clearly we have demonstrated today. That there was a contract that went outside of what I believe was the law that we actually passed. And so that needs clarification and that's the report that I'm suggesting. And we did discover one today. I think that was what the whole discussion was about. So are there others out there and we asked that question, the, the lady from OSP stated that yes, that is currently being used by other agencies with other contracts. Therefore, I make this motion that we need to know then. Who's who's using this process and we need to flag those contracts. And I think that's good information that we as the members of the legislature need to know. And we need to obviously have a report about this so that we can make, make clear adjustments in the law next session, so that price is always considered. The taxpayers of the state of Arkansas deserve our stewardship of their dollars. And I don't think that's an unreasonable thing, and that's this review subcommittee did that work? And we went through a whole year worth of procurement, study and process. And, and it, it is the role of the subcommittee to do that. Not just sit here and go yes or no and assume that we're being told everything that's true. That's not my role. My role is to be a fiduciary responsible person for the stewardship of the taxpayers of the state of Arkansas. That's my role, and that's why I make my motion. You have the opportunity to vote against it or for it, but I appreciate the conversation or the reporting part, are you wanting contract new going forward or already reviewed contracts? OK, just on the going forward. Thank you for that clarification. Uh, Senator Gilmore, you're up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, and just to follow by way of follow up to Senator Irvin's point, um, by testimony in their own admission today, OSP stated they don't know the process that corrections is following. That's what we're trying to ascertain. That's what we're trying to figure out. I'm not saying corrections didn't follow a process, a process that they felt was correct. Maybe it is correct. I think the issue at hand is we do not know. And I think it, it is incumbent upon us to figure that out. So I appreciate the motion. I appreciate this discussion. I think it's helpful going forward and I do think that it is the role of this review committee to figure out whether the process was followed or not. We had testimony that contradicted itself from OSP to the Department of Corrections back and forth. They said they did, they said they didn't. We need to figure that out. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Representative Stetson, you're up next. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this may be this question of the chair of the staff in these contracts and being new to the committee like a Lead Beatty said, um, doesn't the Office of Procurement if a contract violates procurement laws or anything else, don't they put a letter? Or send us a letter to this committee. I just, just asking for me being a newbie here. Yes, sir. We, they review all the contracts for appropriateness and, um, so they would let us know if there was an issue with the contract. So Just to, just to say hypothetical here, if this violated that, then we should have had a letter, correct? Correct. And as they previously testified, they determined that the, the manner in which it was, um, procured was legal. OK, thank you. Thank you, Representative. You're good? OK. All right. That's all the discussion we've heard the motion and we have a second. All those in favor of Senator Irvin's motion signified by saying aye. Opposed The eyes have it, motion passes. Thank you. Now on to item D5 in state contracts. Katie. Thank you, Mr. Chair. D5 begins on page 25 of your contracts packet. The first contract in state you have for your review is with the Arkansas Public Defender Commission. This is with Anne Marie Drummond, and this is to amend her contract to increase her costs because she has an additional caseload and a reassignment within her judicial district. Contract number 2 is with the Department of Agriculture, with McGonagall Consulting LLC. This is an amendment to an existing contract for their program management system for their plant industries division. Contract number 3 is with the Department of Corrections division of Community Correction with covenant Recovery Incorporated. And this is to increase costs for an existing contract to operate a 75 bed male facility located in Malvern, Arkansas. Item number 4 with the Department of Education, Educational television division. This is a new contract with M&M Productions LLC. This is to produce the high school championship videos on AT&T. Number 5 is the Department of Finance and Administration, Child Support Enforcement with Rockc LLC. This is for shredding services for the Office of Child Support Enforcement. A number 6 with the Department of Health with the Arkansas Rural Water Association. This is Amendment number 7 to an existing contract to provide technical and operational improvement services for water systems. To bring them into compliance with safe drinking Water Act requirements. Number 7 is with the Department of Health, with Communities Unlimited Incorporated. This is Amendment number 7 to an existing contract, also to, um, improve small water systems and make them compliant with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Beginning on page 29. With contract number 8 and going all the way over to Contract number 24 on page 38. These are all contracts with the Department of Human Services, and as was previously testified, these are all of their substance abuse programs. Um, there, there was a discussion on earlier, so this is all funded with their substance abuse, block grant funding. It includes counseling, therapy services, residential services, and these provide services statewide. So that's number 8 through 24. That brings us forward to page number 39 in D5. This is with number 25 is with the Department of Human Services with Western Arkansas Counseling and guidance. This is a minute forward to an existing contract for medical detoxification services. Number 26 is DHS with the Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance. This is an amendment to an existing contract and it's to add funding to a contract in support of the governor's healthy, active Arkansas plan. Number 27 with DHS. This is a contract with Arkansas Foundation for Medical Care. This is Amendment 2 to an existing contract. This is to update the performance indicators to continue providing Medicaid beneficiary relations and provider relations services. Number 28 with DHS. This is the CSRA state and local Solutions LLC contract. This is Amendment 2 to an existing contract. It's mostly federal and it is for a patient-centered medical home provider portal solution. It's for the portal. Number 229 with the Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism. This contract is with Encore Technology Solutions. This is a new contract, and it is for the purchase and installation of an access control system at the historical Arkansas Museum. Contract number 30 is with the University of Arkansas with mainstream technologies. This is Amendment one to an existing contract. This is their infrastructure assessment project. And this is where they, um, are doing an overhaul and assessment of all of their networks and trying to realize efficiencies and effectiveness. Number 31 is the University of Arkansas with Team CPR Incorporated. This is a new contract, and it is for revenue cycle management and billing for their Pat Walker Health Center. Number 32, University of Arkansas at Little Rock with 21 CGS CJS janitorial services. This is a new contract to provide janitorial services on UA Little Rock's campus. Number 33 with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock with Arkansas Foundation for Medical Care. This is Amendment 7 to an existing contract to increase the funding for their Archival risk factor databook. Then, beginning on page 42 with contract number 34. And we go all the way to page 49 with 48, so contracts 34 to number 48 are all contracts with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock? And this is their portion of Um, the substance abuse. Grant program. They also kind of sub-grant out to certain providers. And so that's their section. Number 49 is the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences with Village Travel. This is a new contract for $3.6 million and this is to provide transportation and shuttle services all around the UAMS campus. Number 50. Is our last contract under instate. This is with the University of Central Arkansas, contracting with Stevens Incorporated? This is a new contract to provide financial advisory services for UCA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are the in-state contracts for your review today. Thank you, Katie. Senator Hammer, you are recognized. Department of Health first for a quick question then DHS. Can we get Department of Health for a quick question. It's on number 7. Thank you. Number 7. Good Afternoon. Click your button and tell us who you are and we'll get on with it. Matt Gilmore, Department of Health. Casey Cochran, Department of Health. Senator Hammer. Thank you. The, uh, we're paying these folks to provide financial managerial improvement services for these small systems, do we have measurables that show that The services that they're providing are actually producing anything or is this like where they go and talk to a small water services and say this is what y'all need to be doing in order to improve or what is. I'll start and then let Debbierector Cochran jump in, but they go in and help small systems that are struggling to Educate them and provide some guidance on, you know, grant writing, um, applying for loans, sometimes they counsel advise them on, you know, maybe there's an opportunity to merge systems, so they provide some. Uh, I don't want to say technical advice, but it is kind of technical as to, hey, you might get, you know, do better in your bill collecting or your data collection here, race studies, that sort of thing. I don't know if that helps or not. Yeah, do we get a, do we get a report back because for discussions that have happened in other committee meetings, um, I know there's been some small water systems that have been encouraged to merge, but they don't, and I'm just wondering, do they produce a report that we can get access to, um. Just to have, you know, where we could say, see, we told you this is what you're supposed to be doing, but the small and not just small water system, many water system is not doing what they've been advised to do. And in case he may jump in here, I think they're going to provide, if we ask, if we get their information that they give us, it's gonna be like we met with this system, we did this, this and this. I don't know that they're going to get into the weeds of, you know, Is it advantageous for them to, I'm not sure I'm making sense here. They're gonna, they're gonna provide more advice on, um. How to manage, better manage their system, I think. OK, I'll get with y'all all fine, but you always make sense, by the way. So thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure about that, Senator. But I would like Department of Human Services when appropriate. We can get someone from Welcome back. Mitra's chief of staff DHS. You're up, Senator. Thank you, Ms. Chairman, contracts 8 to 24, um, If I remember some of this right, correct me if I'm wrong, uh, but if I remember some of this right. Um Do we know that the amount of money that is being allocated is actually gonna. Suffice to the need, uh, through the long term or, uh, it seems to me like there was some question about whether or not this is going to be sufficient enough funds for them to be, be able to carry through for the next year based on what we're asking them to do. I'm gonna get Paula up here because she knows the ins and Pollstone Office of Substance Abuse and Mental Health DHS. So Mitch, these are the, the day set contracts, Senator Hammer, um, that's the drug alcohol safety education program. And so what we've done with those is because the funding is limited, um, we allowed them to do a couple of things, so we tried to find a way to create as many efficiencies for that program as possible. Um, and, and to also allow them to provide some services. So this is the program in which when somebody has a DUI that they go through an education program and so we've allowed them to instead of mailing out books or having books printed. Um, they are putting those out, um, via, um, Online and allowing that and then we're also allowing them to deliver those services, those education programs online. Um, so we're, um, hoping that this funding, uh, or these allowances will, um, keep those providers in their ability to provide those education services. OK. All right. And then one other one I don't think it addresses you, Paul, but it's on contract 26, which is the Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance. It says, uh, reduce the agreement total to adjust for an incorrect payment taken from this contract that provides support. Do you know, was that picked up by audit or can you speak to what that incorrect payment was about or do you know? I may have to get back to you on that one, Senator Hammer. I don't know what the incorrect payment was about, but we can get you that information before Friday. Yeah, if you would, please. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. If you don't mind, get that to staff and we'll get it to to the members might be interested in that. Thank you, Senator. All members, no other questions, uh, without objection, these items will stand reviewed. That takes us to item E. And Katie, you're up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next section for the committee's review is just the report section. The first one, item E1. This is, these are the contracts you receive every month where there was no material change. The contracts were just reapproved, um, and so that is submitted for the committee's. Information. The next report for your information is item E2. These are the executed minor contracts. That occurred within the last month for your review. And so those are the reports for this month. Our members, any questions on, uh, E1 or E2? Seeing none without objection, these items all stand reviewed and that takes us to item F. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under I F, under other business we have a couple of member disclosures for your review. This one is a disclosure for Vice Chair Senator Petty, um, with, who has a vested interest with the development finance Authority and so this, the committee is receiving this letter for review and approval, um, from the governor's office that explains the nature of this relationship, as well as a copy of the contract for the committee's review.s any questions on this item? Senator Petty, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just going to make a statement for the record that I will not be voting on this for obvious conflict reasons. All right, members, any questions? All right. Without objection, this A stands reviewed and approved. And that takes us to the supplemental agenda. Thank you Mr. Chair. On the very back of your packet, you have a, a stapled portion, which is our supplemental agenda. There are a few items, one is for your review and 2 are for approval. The first one is an in-state contract that we received after the submittal deadline. It's from the insurance department. It's under item A one under your supplemental packet. And this is a special procurement. This is a new contract that the insurance department has entered into with the US Abel Insurance Company. This contract is for $925,000 for the initial amount. And this is for managed care services for the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission, and they're going to handle claims for state employees as well as res residual claims of city, county and school employees. And as I mentioned before, they just got approval for this because it was, it was handled as special procurement and so behind the contract summary, you'll see the justification form also for the special procurement. And so that's submitted for the committee's review this month. Our members, any questions on this item? Seeing none this autumn shall stand reviewed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And the last two items for the committee's approval are two more additional member disclosures that we received after the Sabile deadline. The first one is a disclosure for Representative Deborah Ferguson. This is just disclosing a relationship that the member has with the University of Arkansas Medical Sciences Regional programs. And the second item is for Representative Collins. It's also disclosing a relationship that the member has with the University of Arkansas Psychiatric research institute. So all that information is found in the back part of your packet for those two disclosures. All members, any questions on either of these two items? Representative Collins. Nothing? All right. Seeing no questions, both of these items will stand reviewed and approved. Members, thank you for your work. That is all we have on the agenda. We are adjourned.