ALC-Review

Alright, members, if you could go ahead and take a seat, we'll get this committee meeting started. Welcome to the review. committee. Welcome back, Cathy. Glad you're doing well and you're up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're going to start on methods of finance in your packet. That's the B section of your agenda, uh, on page one is the letter from DFA, um, Submitting methods of finance for today's legislative review on the next page is the chart with the projects. The first one is ASU Jonesboro, and this will be for their College of Veterinary Medicine, uh, they are noting that their costs will be $33,230,293 and they have reserves set aside for funding that project. UA Community College for the Welcome Center, uh, this one is, uh, normally was uh was originally $250,000. It's been revised to $1,480,000 and they have cash funds to fund the project. UCA has uh various campus improvements. They're revising that to over 3 to $13 million using the agency bank funds, UA Fayetteville has, uh, 2 projects. Uh, they are both for, uh, Maple Hill Residence Hall. One is central and one is north. I also want to note that they have their. uh, alternative delivery projects as well as construction, their architectural contracts on today's agenda. I'll point those out each time, uh, the first one, the central is for $10 million initially. They have student services, housing reserves to fund that project and the other one is for $10 million and again the student services housing, uh, reserves for funding. UAMS has 21 for, uh, region. care facility that's gonna be in Jonesboro for $7 million. They have health resources and services administration grants and the other one, UAMS for the freeway 7th floor, uh, gastroenterology services expansion for $8 million and they have health resources and services administration grants for that MOF as well and the contract for that architectural design services will also be on the agenda under construction-related contracts. Those are all the methods of Finance on today's agenda. All right, members, any questions on these items? Not seeing none without objections, these items will stand reviewed. Uh-huh Lynn, is your mic on? I'm trying to understand this new system. You're up. So. Uh, could you come to the table, please. We could get someone from UA please. Good morning. You would introduce yourself for the record, you can go ahead and get started. Good morning, Rebecca Haley, University of Arkansas. Ms. Haley, uh, On the two projects, the residence hall, were they originally 10 million? And then they, they moved to 135 million, 129 million. Oh, no, no, sir. So the, the original estimated cost right now is around, for one is 129 million and 135 million, the 10 million is the uh initial cost that we're putting in to do the pro the programming, the schematics, all of that original estimate. OK, all right, all right. And, and how big are these buildings gonna be? 10,000 square feet and the other one's 120,000. Square feet. And how tall are we going? Um, not sure yet. That's what the programming and the architecture and the engineer is gonna come back and give that to you? OK. Thank you. And I, I will add for the committee, we, we are looking at 2, but we want to do all the programming and all of that to see what the cost is and all that because this is just an estimate right now on what we think. We're, we're really only gonna go forward with one immediately. For our needs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Reluctantly. Thank you. All right, members, any other questions? All right, see, no other questions. These items stand reviewed. That takes us. To Miss Cathy Mr. Chairman, the next thing on our agenda are the alternative delivery construction projects, and these are the two residence halls that we were just talking with you about, uh, the first one, which is C1 on page one of your packet under C is for the north side of uh residence Hall Maple Hill, and uh as was said, this is 120,000 square feet, somewhere between 600 to 700 beds, uh, goes with the MOF we saw earlier and they'll be Uh, construction related architectural contract later. The contractor that they've chosen for this is VCC. They received 9 proposals. They interviewed 5 contractors. They're looking at DIG SAU core architecture for their design services and again, this in the total project is looking at $129 million but of that 16% will be student services and housing reserves. Which is what they showed on their method of finance, and then they'll be bond proceeds to refund the rest of those expenses. On the next page is the other part of their uh residence hall request, and this is for the larger facility, 150,000 square feet called the central site for res uh residential hall Maple Hill. They had again 9 proposals, uh, 5 interviewed, uh, they chose SCM architects. And uh, uh, Henning Larson for his architectural design firm, NAB Holtz as the contractor, and this one, the total projected cost is $135 million again, the breakdown of student services, housing reserves for 15% and 85% of this will be university reserves to be refunded by bond proceeds. Again, those are the two alternative delivery construction projects over $5 million. All right. Thank you, Cathy. Representative Beatty, you recognized. Mr. Chair, can I have you come to the table, please. Welcome back. Rebecca Haley, University of Arkansas. Miss Haley, just a question. It, it states in both of these, um, um. Projects that it would be, the money would be, um, The housing reserves. What's, what's the total balance in housing reserves at UA right now. I do not have that number with me right now, but I will be happy to get that to the committee. All right. Thank you. You would just get that to the, the BLR and we'll get it distributed to the committee members. Thank you. Thank you. Um, maybe. Thank you. You're right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just real quickly, I mean. I might have done the math wrong, but it looks like $1000 a square foot. What type of building is this? It's our residence hall, so they're not, it's not like traditional construction for a residential commercial, even apartments because when you're looking at, we use different materials that are more solid, well made, that can maintain in the safety of our students. So for instance, we use CMU block instead of like sheetrock and everything in the, in the halls. So it does cost more because there's not, you know, it's, it's commercial grade, but it's It's bigger, it's different and unfortunately right now with the process of construction, it is a little bit more even with today's prices of construction, $1000 a square foot is. More than double some of the nicest homes I've ever seen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you, Senator. Members, any other questions? All right. Seeing none, these items without objection will stand reviewed. Thank you, Rebecca. All right, Kathy, you're up, I D. Mr. Chairman, the next things are, uh, discretionary grants and we have uh 2 agencies that have submitted grants. The first one is the Department of Health on page D1. Um, this is a, an amendment to an existing grant with they that they have with the Northeast Arkansas Regional AIDS Network, and this is to continue to expand and maintain resources for direct housing subsidies and appropriate support services, and that's for individuals, uh, with HIV on the The next page is uh starts the grants for the Department of Human Services, um, and they have several, these are all going to be for their youth services division, so they all deal with those clients, the first one is to establish a program of education, care, training services, rehab, health and well-being targeting juveniles in central Arkansas communities, and that's where gang-related incidences are common, and then their second one is to establish the B2S program, and this is for academic enrichment, tutoring, and STEM, um, the 3rd 1 on page 2 is to promote models that encourage lasting change in the lives of young people and families. On the next page, number 4 is to provide your, uh, the youth development programs designed to foster self-expression, build confidence and enhance social emotional learning through poetry and spoken word. Number 5 is to provide a non-secure community-based program that will enable juveniles an opportunity for protection and development. Number 6, again, all of these are for their youth services is for the development of youth by addressing their need for positive adult contact number 7 on the next page is, uh, for providing youth with weekly access to mentors and number 8, their last one there is for establishing the strengthening families. program, which is an evidence-based family skills training program that's all the discretionary grants on today's agenda. All right, members, any questions on these items? Senator Hammer, you're recognized. Thanks. Can we get, uh, Department of Human Services to the table, please. All right, we could get some from DHS. Good morning. If you would just when you get sat down, uh, introduce yourself for the record, and we'll get on with answering some questions. Thank you. Sarah Cunningham, Office of Procurement with DHS. Good morning, Laurie McDonald, Chief of Staff, DHS. Thank you. Good morning. Could you tell me about the, well, first of all, for, for all, they all seem to be along the same line as far as what they're intended to achieve, were these all the applicants that applied or was anybody turned down for any of the grants. So this was all of these are similar because they were all awarded from the same request for applications for the same federal funding. Um In response to that publicly posted request for applications, there were 22 responses in 19, uh, sub-grantees were awarded. OK, and the ones that didn't receive the grant, why didn't they receive it? Is it, go ahead. I don't have the exact answer to that question, but I can get, um, someone from DYS to come up to speak to why they didn't, but I do know that the Arkansas Coalition of juvenile Justice had 4 of its board members as the review committee for all submissions, but we can get someone, yep. Why sure just introduce yourself for the record when you get when you get there. OC Hunter Junior DYS. OK. Um The 3 that um Miss Cunningham said that did not get awarded because they was on a um Uh, grading bases and they didn't get above 80% and then that category was. Um, 12 and 3 did not get awarded. Um, it was like she said the Arkansas Coalition of Juvenile Justice subcommittee that's awarded them. OK, and then one specific question. On, on, uh, #2, Ministry of Intercession bridge to success. It talks about to create an environment of inclusion and diversification through an area of academia, could you be specific because those words mean different things to different people. Could you tell me what the definition is they use it in this purpose for inclusion and diversification means. Um, I don't have the application, but I can give it to Sarah, so we can go in depth of it so you can see um how they um identified what they were gonna do and um with that. OK, then the last question, if maybe you could send that to the staff so that that could be sent out to all the members. And the last question is this. Do you, uh, do you factor into a review of, in this case, all of these entities, their previous track record of delivering, um, to previous contracts that they've received to determine if they've met measurables and if they have been successful in other areas where they've received awards. Within the division, yes sir. So most of these have um previously received um our sub grant um from DYS and we look at their, um, goals and objectives and see if they have measure measurable and also the the vision we go out and monitor them as well. OK. All right. I'll, I'd like to get copies of those reports you want to send them to the staff, staff send them out. I'd like to get copies of those reports, please. Thank you. If you would get that information to staff, we'll get it to all the members of the committee. Yes, sir. Alright, thank you for coming down and seeing no other questions. Remember, any other questions on items D1 or D2? Seeing none without objection, these items will stand reviewed, and that takes us to item E, Miss Cathy. Mr. Chairman, we're now looking at the packet E, which is our contracts on the first page is the letter from the director of the Office of State procurement, Jessica Patterson. Uh, she notes that there is a contract that'll be on page 1114 for UAPB that's being presented and um. It is a contract that's needing to be ratified, so when we get there, we'll explain the contract and everything. She then notes that none of the other contracts appear to have been procured in violation of the Arkansas procurement law, and on the second page is the chart that they are providing now of new contracts with the RFP that are using RFP for procurement and it notes the, uh, whether they have used the traditional RFP method or the map method. So, uh, that's the first thing that we had in the first group of contracts are actually construction related contracts beginning on E3. The first one is for DHS and this is their on-call archi architectural design contract, an amendment to that contract. Next is the Department of Parks and Heritage and Tourism contracts number 2 to 9 are all going to be their contracts for various park rehab services throughout the state. That takes us over to. age 10, and at the top of page 10, you have a new contract for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and this is for the design services for their North Little Rock, um, home, they are needing to replace the HVAC and uh and administration buildings HVAC system, so this is the design services for those projects, uh, number 11 and 12 are University of Arkansas. These are the design services for the projects we've talked about, the Hill residents north and central projects and then uh number 13 is your University of Arkansas with Wittenberg. This is architectural fees based on uh the total construction costs. This is for their carbide fabrication lab project on the next page, uh, number 14, this is the UAPB contract uh that a request is being made for ratification in talking with OSP and with the agency. Uh, they originally had a contract that came before Pier for this with this particular contractor, AMR back in it came before peer review, joint budget back in uh April of 2020, and they began work on the student union union renovation and they ran into some problems um in your golden rod packet on the front page is their letter about requesting the ratification. In that letter they said that during that time they encountered unforeseen challenges, COVID and other things, um, they paid, uh, almost the first contract was $1,350,000. They note that they paid a,228,663 dollars 50 cents on that project. However, that same AMR, uh, architect who is familiar with this project and who. uh, originally had a contract with them is continued, has continued to do some work on the 2nd phase of their renovation, however, they don't, didn't have a contract. They are requesting to ratify this contract back to July 1 of 2023, and they know they uh owe somewhere around $402,000 on services that have been provided since the original contract expired. Moving on number 15 and 16 are on call contracts for UAMS and number 17 is a contract for UAS. This is an original new contract for architectural and engineering services, and this is for their gastroenterology, uh, expansion and we saw the MOF earlier in the agenda for on the agenda for that. These are all the construction related contracts on today's agenda. Thank you, Cathy. Members, any questions? Senator Chesterfield, you recognize her? Thank you so much for allowing me to ask a question, Mr. Chair, as I am not a member of the committee this year on number 11. I am trying May I have someone from UA from UA to come forward and answer that question. answer my question. Oh God. She probably feels the same way. I know. I know, I know. I love her so much, I don't like to be mean to her. Uh, could you please tell me why you found it necessary to go to Philadelphia to get an architect, and we have a plethora of them here in the state of Arkansas. Yes, ma'am. Rebecca Haley, University of Arkansas. We put out an RFQ with all the requirements and interviewed and did all of that and this is who the, um, construction team felt like would be the best person to move forward after all of those interviews and, um, With, with the architects. Did they provide the lowest bid? With an RFQ by statute, it doesn't have to be a low bid because it is construction. OK. Now, we've known each other a long time, so let's speak. Chesterfield here ma'am. It wasn't necessarily the lowest bid. What made it stand out more than Arkansans who are in architecture that we would send it to Philadelphia. I don't have all of that with me if, if you would allow me to appreciate it very much. Thank you. So good to see you. And I have one more question on Lenexia, where is Lenexia. It's on number 16 location Lenexia, what is that? What part of the state is that in? It's in Kansas, ma'am. It's in where? Kansas. OK, so we're going to Kansas and we've gone to Philadelphia. Help me with Kansas now and, and I will say I need to do research, but they could have offices in Arkansas. Digsa and Connexia. I'm one of those who believes in keeping the money here, unless there is some outstanding. Difference between an Arkansas firm and the firm in Philadelphia or in Kansas, so I would just appreciate that information. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much for allowing me to Senator, that is UAS. I've, I've seen Andy Davis walking around if you want to ask him some questions. I do. He does kind of get away without answering a bunch of them, doesn't. Rebecca is a former member of our staff here at the bureau, and we're just so very proud of her, uh, and she's always done an outstanding job, so I look forward to hearing from you. Good to see you again to staff. We'll get it out to the members. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. Thanks, Becky, good to see you. Uh, uh, come back. Senator Hammer, you're recognized. Thank you And before I ask my questions, could, could Kathy just confirm we're on the We're on what's covered on our page. 10, right, page 8. This is, uh, you have a contract number 12, and you have a contract 11. 13, right? I'm on the right one, right? OK, so Rebecca, I just heard your explanation as to why you picked the architectural firm out of Philadelphia, but then if you drop down to the next contract, which is almost identical in value and also, um, boasting with Maple Hill. And, and then you got SMC architects out of Little Rock, and you got that company architecture PC Philadelphia. Are they, are they two different services they're providing, or are they one and the same because it seems like they're both. It's two different contracts, Senator Hammer, so we went with two different, we, we split the, the two different residence halls, and we split those up because of the, the complexity of building a residence hall, so we didn't want to put them together. We needed to make sure, you know, this is 3 years, um, that, that would put a lot on one firm to have to do both residence halls. That's why it was two separate contracts, and that's why you're seeing that. It's, you know, it was two separate contracts. Were they given the opportunity To bid As for both or did You they make the decision to split it. Uh, we made the decision to split it up. Without asking them if they could. Do it if they couldn't staff up to do it. Um, I, I will have to get back and talk to the construction team about that, but I, I know our concern was with the project, the scale even one was gonna be a lot to maintain and do. We, we've had some issues on campus with other large scale projects being able to find the staff in construction managers to handle those, those large scale projects like this. Because the subcontractors and other issues. How many other firms were invited to participate in the bidding process. On the Maple Hill north side we had. Dick. We had 9 proposals, and we interviewed 5. And then on the same, and it could have been the same firms did both because on the central site, there were 9 proposals, and we interviewed 5 on that as well. So it could have been all 9 were the same. I'll need to just verify that. OK, I want to go back to Senator Payton's and see if there's a tie in between his bringing out the $1000 per square foot cost. Are these architects, how are they being paid? Are they being paid by the hour or are they being paid on a percentage of the contract or how are they paid? a percentage of the overall estimated total cost. So if you're, if you're paying $1000 a square foot, that's driving up what the architects are going to get paid. Is that right? Correct? Did you residence hall, even like the multi-user silicon carbide that's on here as well. These are really complex and stringent design requirements that we have to do and using, we're using different materials and those things and being on a college campus as well where they're located, really affects the price as well because, you know, for 3 years we're gonna have a construction site so that there's a lot of other safety and proper conditions that we have to do as well. What are the required And I'll stop in his chair because it's probably a conversation another committee or another time, but What are, what are the, what are the materials that are required and who made the requirements, are they, I mean, like in, in schools, we require them to have safe rooms because of a national code are the materials that are being used are required by the UFA? Are they being required by national standards, but I'd like to be able to verify that. OK, well, We'll probably have a follow-up discussion then. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, thank you, Rebecca. Members, any other questions? Thank you. This is more of a general question, who at the University of Arkansas manages these projects for you. So we have a facilities management team that handles all of this. They have construction managers, they handle the day to day operations and they have architects and engineers on the staff. OK, so you, you do have what I would refer to as an owner's rep that is managing the projects construction managers right now currently. OK. I, I think that's really important that. I'm almost to the point where I think we need to require that for any of these large school, large scale projects, because if we do not have the same level of expertise managing the project on our behalf, then, you know, the, the contractors can, that can get out of, out of hand very quickly. Architects, engineers, contractors, um, and I, and I know, you know, that it, it, it, I think it should be a requirement, and I, I, I worry about some of the construction projects. that we have going on at different, not just at your level, a higher ed, but across the board parks and tourism. Do we have the, do we have the expertise in house to be able to really make sure that they're watching and being good stewards of our money, um, along the lines of these questions that are being asked by Senator Hammer and Senator Payton. So you do feel like we do have a good owner's rep team in place that can. Really review all. Um, contracts and purchase orders and, and maintain. I, I think reasonable, um, direction. Yes, ma'am, and we are looking at that because we did, you know, we just went through our appropriation and our personal services, and we are asking for 4 additional ones with the projects that we have to make sure that, like you said, that it's maintaining that we're getting the best bang for our buck and everything. So we really do look at that. And that's probably a question I'll, I'm ask, I'm asking that question to Parks Heritage and tourism, but I can get offline with you guys and talk through that. Because I have the same concerns there, and it's really just making sure that we're not being taken advantage of and run over, you know, by, by, by companies. So, um, I'll, I'll visit with you guys offline on that. Thank you. You've heard my concern. Thanks. Thank you, Senator. Senator Peyton, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm, I'm just curious, uh. Some of the things that that she said they were gonna be able to get the information to the committee, uh, can we hold? This number 11 up until we get that information. Or what would the impact be if we did? Because I mean, that's a 5 year. Contra or 4 year contract. $9.3 million. I mean, that's maybe we should have the information before we move forward. Senator Payne, a couple of options you can not review number 11. And hold it over for ALC tomorrow. Uh, if they can get the information that the members have requested in a timely fashion today. Otherwise, if this particular contract is not reviewed, uh, today, then it would have to be brought back next month. Right. Well, if we, I mean, I, usually they're very quick to get that information out, but I mean, it's just such a big contract over such a long period of time, I think we ought to have the information first and then we can review it tomorrow. Certainly your prerogative. Thank you. I'd like to hold 11. Senator Hammer, you're recognized. Hang on just a second, Senator Hammer. We've got Representative Beatty in line ahead of you. Uh, Representative Beatty, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have questions on, uh, number 14 with UAPB. OK, hold on to that one second. Senator Hammer is yours from, you know they? All right. Representative Beatty will come right back to you. We'll get Senator Hammer. Senator Hammer, you're recognized. OK, Rebecca on the, on the funding source, this is 100% cash. So these are all university funds that are being spent on the, on the contract and also on the facility itself. Yes, sir, right now for the architects it is cash. OK, for, OK, and so the Approval system by UFA is it's been run by The facility team or and you do have an owner's rep involved in this. So the board of trustees of UFA is comfortable. With this as well. They, they're in the loop on this and they have to approve it before the, the project before it becomes comes before the legislature, right? OK, I just want to get that in the public that they're, they're comfortable with it and OK. All right, thanks. Thank you, Senator. uh. Senator Payton When you get a minute, come here for a second. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My, again, my question is for UAPB. Do we have any Rebecca? If we could get someone here for UAPB, that'd be great. Just introduce yourself for the record and we can go ahead and get started with Representative Beatty's question. Adrian Childs, University of Arkansas Pine Bluff, Associate Vice Chancellor for Finance. Alicia Lewis University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff interim director of procurement. Thank y'all. My, my question, uh, goes back to the contract and the student union design and build. It was one of the first things I remember from when I came to the legislature back in 2020. Here we are, uh, 4 years later, and we're still working on the student union and, um, This contract lapsed. So can you give us an update on where we stand on the completion of the student union, and how long that project will go because I, I see this contract would go to June 30 of 27. So a seven-year project for, uh, the student union where, where do we stand on that and, and watch the anticipated completion date and. OK, certainly. Anticipate completion date, um, what has been given to us is December of 2025, construction has begun on campus as they have begun, um, dirt work and Getting the foundation prepared. So we don't It may have some delay in it if, you know, weather conditions or things like that, but December of 2025 is the date we have received from our contractors. All right. Well, that, that, those are my main questions. I mean, primarily this was one of the first contracts I remember in the discussion centered around the student union and some additions that you were going to, uh, add to that program for, for the students and, and, and staff there at the university and it sounded like an important project, just seems like it, it just keeps hitting roadblocks and problems with the extending the length of time to, to get this thing to, um, uh, fruition and, and get it wrapped up. So look forward to seeing it, look forward to coming down and. And, and seeing what good work you've done there. Thank you. Alright, I have a question about this also on, on item 14. And I, I sort of understand what happened, the contract expired. Now you guys owe $400,000 to the same contractor, but I'm a little confused. Really what we're being asked to do here, we're being asked to ratify a contract and backdate it to July of 2023. So, I mean, What would a better way be to make a new contract effective, say tomorrow and then just ratify the remaining balance. And maybe that's a question for OSP Jessica, do you mind helping me understand what we're doing here? Hi Jessica Patterson, Office of State procurement. This is actually a question that we kind of kicked around ourselves in our office because there wasn't a contract in place, like you said that the contract had lapsed, um, but they have to have a, a method of pay, um, you know, bills that accumulated during a period of time when they're, when there was no contract. So we could, um, ratify a contract that was, um, that, that, the contract that had lapsed, or we could just, um, acknowledge the fact that there wasn't a contract in place or that the contract continued for a period of time, um, afterwards and then it needs to be ratified. Does that make sense? Sorry, yeah, it it does except. I, I, I don't know that that personally that I'm comfortable backdating a contract to a year and a half ago. cause questions in my mind are how did, how did we let the contract expire? How did we not know? And that may be a question for you APB. And, and I think that maybe a better way to look at it is we're not backdating a contract. We're extending the, the first contract that was in place for a longer period of time. To what period of time? I guess to the period of time when, uh, up until it needs to be paid. It's, there has to be a contract in place in order for, um, the, in order for a payment to be made, and so if there is no contract, you know, But you're not amending the old contract. So you can't say that we're gonna continue that contract if you're not amending it presented to us, so we were looking for a way to deal with what we had before us. Is there any precedent? For, for, I mean, I know we've done things in the past, um, Department of Ag maybe had one where we had to ratify an expense that they incurred that they didn't expect. I feel like this is the same way. I'm just not, maybe it is the right way to do it. I just seem a little odd to ask us to review and ratify a contract and really get the way that it appears to me is that we're backdating a contract for a year and a half ago. Well, I don't think the actual contract itself should be backdated. I think just in the system acknowledging the fact that the, um, that the POs were dated previously. I don't think that the, the contract itself is going to be, you know, as written the document should be backdated. But, um, in, in the system, it has to go back in order for there to be for, in order for payments to be made. I think about that for a second. Uh, we got some more questions. Senator Hammer, you're recognized. Thank you. Just kind of walk me through it. So you had a contract. Um, what is it that happened? That Stopped that contract at the time. First question, the tag on question answer at the same time is, how did that contract go on? Or how could that contractor go on. And and incur a $400,000 debt. Without that money being there to pay for it, because what I'm wondering is, how did that ever happen in the first place? And was there any illegal activity that allowed that to happen, that it got that far in the rears. Yeah, I mean, I don't think there was any illegal activity that went on. We did bring it before um ALC with all the approvals before, I think in the midst of All the different construction contracts and things that we had going on and and trying to obtain the contractor with all of the escalating costs that were going on, I believe, and like I say, it'll apart on UAPB's part that it got missed that this was about to expire because although we know contracts can go up to 7 years, it still has to come before um legislative council, and I think on UAPB's part, we miss. On that. OK. And I can, I can accept that if it was just oversight, if it was just missed. I can accept that. It's, it just seems like it has convoluted the arrangement, uh, for how we, how do you get out of where you are, not wanting to be there in the first place. Uh, so the contractor has been working and This 400,000 is all accumulated to one contractor. Yes, to the architect, um, AMR to the architect. OK. And they've been cooperative with you as far as Yes. And they, and I, I guess part of it is they kept running up the tab. Did they know at the time that What was happening that they'd be running up a tab and wouldn't be able to get paid for it unless today happens. I don't think that they were where they were in the assumption that they were operating under a contract that got approved, so they were um doing work as if the contract was still going on because we were still working on getting the contractor negotiating price, and they were helping us, you know, sort through all of the different issues that were going on with, you know, pricing and things of that nature. OK. All right, I'll hold for now. Thank you. So you're saying the contractor did not know that their contract with UAPB had expired? No, I don't think they were aware that their contract had expired because we had already sent one up back in 2020. OK Representative Kavanaugh. You. Thank you, Mr. Chairman over here. First of all, I don't really know how we missed that a contract is expired. I don't understand how we as a, you as an agency and a contractor don't realize that they don't have an agreement to continue to work. That Being quite frank, it's just mismanagement. And then secondly, my question is going to be, when did you realize that this, you had no contract with this. individual or this agents or. His architect, when did you realize this? And we realized that we didn't have um the contract. Can you hear me now? OK. So we did, we realized that we didn't have a contract, um, when we came up with the GMP amount for this project, and that's when we realized that the original contract had expired in June 30th of 2023. OK, when did you realize that I'm asking you the date that you realize that this contract was expired. June of this year, 2024. OK. It's gonna ask me another question. If you know in June of 2024 that this contract had expired. How come we're now into November, halfway through, and we're just now coming and why did we allow a con a contract to continue to have billable hours to it when you knew it was not valid. So I think we did, um, When it was realized, we did notify them and um Stop it, um, but. I mean, it was on the part of our agency that it got missed. OK, so When it, since it got missed, we're now from June. In November. Now you're coming here and saying you need $400,000 because you allowed a contract to expire, and you allowed a contractor to continue to use that contract. How much of this has happened that we're wanting us to pay has happened after you realize the contract had expired. The amount was $402,295.79. OK, so you knew the contract expired in July or June, and you continue to use it and let this person work with no contract with the state. I think that's when we became aware, we did tell them of the issue and talked about the issue about To stop doing the services, but we, because we needed to come back and get it um ratified. OK, my question was, after you noticed that the contract was expired. How much services was provided to UAPB after you found out that the contract was expired. Mm Now that I'm not aware of just because I wasn't. In the project to um Give directions to the architect. I would like to have that information. I would like to know after that you found the contract was expired and you had no contract. How many more dollars were billed by this person or this architect firm. After you knew they had no contract. I can get that information. Thank you. Wouldn't that be 40 $2000? Mr. Chair. Yes. I'd like to hold this. Thank you. Jessica Couple of questions. If, if we'd realized at some point the contract was expired, yet the, the contractor was still doing work. I mean, is this the best way to handle it or couldn't we have done a special procurement or should they go to claims? I know we've done that in the past to try to get this vendor paid. I mean, clearly they're, they're doing the work, but if the contract is not ratified, then they could go to the claims commission and, and seek to get their money that way. I know that that has done and that that has happened in the past, um, special procurement isn't going to cure this type of situation though that's only prospectively, it's not retrospectively, so I don't think that that would have helped in this instance. Now. If they had, if they needed, if they realized that the contract was going to expire and they needed an extension before they realized that it expired, then they could have asked for a special procurement, but you can't ask for a special procurement at this point to fix it. And who at UAPB is in charge of monitoring. These type of things, contracts. I am. OK. And did you just missed it or just were unaware or? I just missed this one. This one was just an oversight at this at that time we had so many projects going on at one time and then we were also short staffed. I only had 2 people, it was me it's a big deal. I mean, to to let something like this expire because you're putting us in a weird spot here, honestly, Senator Chesterfield, you're back again? I am. Yeah, you, I could add something, but I shan't, um, you've had a change in leadership. We have. OK. You've had a change in leadership, um. It has caused some. Some issues Has it not? Yes. How long have you been in charge of this? Um, since 2020 to the beginning of 2022. So you were in a position then to know about this. Or Is this new to your bailiwick? Was somebody else working with you that was over you during that period of time? Yes. And and that's my concern, Mr. Chair, is that I know that there has been a change in leadership. When there's a change in leadership, it creates difficulty. Because everything does not get done as it should be done when one person was doing it this way, another person was doing it that way. Is that what was going on at UAPB? That's my understanding. Yes. And uh I'd hate for the current administration to be punished for. What happened in the previous administration. And the people who are going to be hurt the most are the kids who need this building the most. And so I would ask that we remember that. As we're going forward. Um, I'm not sure everybody keeps up with UAPB quite like I do, even though I don't represent that area, but I do know that with changes in leadership, with changes in individuals who are responsible for certain things, things fall through the cracks. It's not always nice. It's not always as neat as we'd like it to be, but it does happen. And as a result of that. If we do not allow this to go forward, then kids are going to be hurt because they have been waiting on this building for some time, so I would just ask that we keep that in mind, uh, state government's messy. This is a little messy, but there are reasons for that, and I would hate for these two individuals who are here now. With that deer in the headlight look that they've got in their eyes, uh, saying we're just doing the best we can to try to get something done for the kids at UAPB for the young adults at UAPB. So I would ask that we keep that in mind. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. Senator Hammer, you recognized. They, they must share, and, uh, the young lady on the end down there, I'm sorry, I didn't get your name. I apologize. Um In, in 2022 or during the course of this time. You had a supervisor above you. Is that my correct understanding? In 2022, that's when I um got into this position. Right. You had a supervisor above you. Is that correct? OK. And I'm just curious, when did you discover this was happening? You said 2022, when you realize the contractor, it was June of 24, when all of a sudden the bells started going off. Yes. June of 24. Yes. OK. So I just want to ask you, at any time, were you aware that the contract had expired. And were you given instruction by anybody above you either under previous administration or current administration. Not to bring this to light. No. OK, that's good. So what we're dealing with here is just simply an oversight of something that just fell off the radar screen and here we are today trying to get it fixed. So, in, in, in June of 24, When you discovered this, how much at that time was the was the architect owed. Was at the 404,000. Or was it less than that and it's accumulated to today's value of 400,000. It's the the $402,295.79. That was as of June of 24. Yes. And since then, In June of 24. It was 402,000. is what What was, what was owed at that time of which the contract expired and you could not pay the architect that amount. Is that correct? That is correct. OK. Has the contractor, has the architect done any work since then? It's the, has he accumulated any additional cost since June of 24 to today. I would have to get that information to see where they are on the billing. Um um Because like I said, we know we notified them of the issue when we. We when we found out the issue, we knew that we needed to come talk, um, when she came and talked to me that's when I told her we needed to talk to OSP to see what can be done and what are the issues, so we seek their guidance on what to do and how to handle this situation because this was new territory for I know me and her. OK, and when did that conversation happen? June of 24. I don't Go ahead, Jessica were aware of it late last month. So when they said that they needed to, to pay these bills and then they, they were trying to put a new contract in place, but they had outstanding invoices that they needed to pay and so we told them that because they didn't have a contract in place, and yet the contractor had been working that they needed to seek ratification and approval from this body. OK, and what we didn't it until late last month. OK, and that conversation that y'all two had took place when? When did she bring it to your attention? I was notified of it probably about around the time that, um, they notified OSP. Um, I can't remember the exact date because it was kind of a verbal conversation and then from there, that's when I kind of gave the guidance that we needed to talk to somebody on how to fix this and try and make this right, given the oversight that had occurred. OK. And, and what I need to know though, is right now we're sitting with a tab of 402,000. That became apparent in June of 24. So there, there is, if I understand right, there is no contract since then until now for that architect to be doing any work or that architect has been doing work since then, and there's additional money that is owed to them in addition to the 142,000. Is that architect owed more than 402,000 because they have been doing work since they were notified that there was no contract to be operating under. I apologize. I was asking her, did she remember when she notified him. Up, um, the issue. I think we'll have to go back and um pull that information to give you an exact date, right? But is the contract, is the architect. Working now, has he accumulated? Have they accumulated more than just a 402,000. Is he running up a bill right now? I would say potentially. Because I don't know what our facility team has asked of them, but I would, I would say potentially to answer your question. OK, then I'm sorry. No, go ahead. I'm sorry. I just, I'm just not aware of the dollar amount. I would have to ask questions of our architect to find that. So what I'm wrestling with, maybe I'm just missing it when I'm wrestling with is. It's an expired contract, of 402,000. Potentially that architect is out there continuing to run up a tab, but how is that architect continuing to run up a tab, and you know that there's not a contract, but yet the architect is doing it, or am I just missing it, Mr. Chair, that there's, there may be a, A a tab that's being run up Jessica, how, how is that going to be handled if that is the case if we're not dealing with 40 and 2000, but we are dealing with 402,000 and a running tab that continues to go up under what contract is that going to be covered and how are we going to know what that is? Well, I think that the contract that there exists that they're Um, that they're requesting review on goes until 6:30 of 2027. So, um, if this contract is reviewed, then it would encompass everything between, uh, between July 1st of 2023. And, um, and 6:30 of 2027. So it would, if, if it's reviewed, then it would encompass work that is that is being. Done now which will start off with 402,000 coming out of that amount plus whatever they're doing now. So does the contract that we're awarding through 427 or whatever date that was, you say, have enough money in it, knowing that they're gonna go in having to take 402,000 plus whatever has been occurred or they're gonna be coming back in a year and say we don't have enough money in that. Uh, amount of the contract within, within those states, um, that they've requested is over $2 million. So the question is, my last one, is that gonna be enough to complete your project knowing that you're gonna take 402,000 plus X number of dogs you're not certain of to pay the architect, is that gonna leave you enough to complete the project. It should, they're paid based on a percentage of the total cost. Part, um, what the original contract was. We have, um, Finalize the um total cost of the building, so we should have the total cost set for um the architect to be paid. OK, thank you. So remember, I think the question really is, there was a mistake made, the contract expired, work continued to get done. So the, the question, I mean, obviously it was just a mistake. There's nothing nefarious and we need to get this vendor paid. The question is, what's the best way to go about doing it? It appears that this way is a new contract. Backdating it technically to include the amount that they've already incurred that has not been paid from the previous contract, and that's the part we're wanting to ratify. The alternatively, They, they would have to go through a little bit more strenuous process and go to the claims commission to collect that money and, and, and start a new contract. Is that right? So you, and you mentioned earlier, um, Jessica, that you talked to your group and felt like this was the best way to handle it going forward. Yes, to, um, to get the contractor paid for work that had already been performed and allowed them to not have to seek review of a of a totally new contract to go forward because I think that they're wanting to continue the project and I'll have to wait. We thought that this was the best way to bridge that gap, that's good. Representative Springer, you're recognized. Uh, good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank Senator Hammer. I think he brought us, took us around and brought us all the way back to where we needed to be, so thank you very much, Senator. Representative Painter. You're recognized for a quick question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand you guys talked about a leadership change. When was that leadership change? Our chancellor left in June of this year, 24. So at about the time you notified the contract was gone. OK, great. Thank you. Senator Petty, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, not to, to go back to Senator Hammer's, uh, question on the, on the cost, but just big picture, it's more of a, a question of the contract originally was the original contract for design at in, in 2020. And I personally having lived through building during the pandemic, I'm a little more sympathetic over missing, uh, a deadline on something, but in general, the contract with them originally was to design. for this building. And then it had, it had a dollar amount and it had a time deadline. The dollar amount was the estimate of what they thought it was going to take for the contract and the deadline, assuming we didn't have a pandemic, they would be done with it. And then that's the what snuck up on us and, and, and caused the miss of the time deadline from a cost standpoint. Is the $2 million is that in addition to the original contract, that's what I'm not, and you may be able to answer this too. Is that the total contract maybe with a, a, a chain. What, what does that $2 million represent? A continuation of the original contract in that amount, or is it 2 million more, if you will, from another contract. I, I, the 2 million is just for this current contract that they're seeking review of. I don't know what the prior contract was. I don't have that information. No, the total for this um contract should just be 2 million. We're not asking for an additional 2 million. We're just trying to finish out the original intent of the building. We, we hired somebody to design a building, pandemic and historic inflation and construction costs got us, we may be cost a little more. build it, but, but this is in essence, the continuation of what they originally were hired to do. Yes. All right. Thank you. OK, so the original contract was $1.35 million. Are you asking for an additional 2 million on top of that? I just, I just want to understand the numbers because I, I, like I said, I don't think anything was nefarious. I just want to get to the, the money. So on the 2 million, that's the uh remaining that we, that we're needing. So yes. In addition to that. That's, so that's in addition to the original contract of 1.3. I think that's right. Yes. Yeah. OK. Thank you for, thanks for clarifying that. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Well, still just trying to, thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me again. Still, still just trying to follow. How the mistake was made so I can understand that. What, what payment system are you using when you, when you go in to process payments for these contracts because my understanding is. That it, it kind of tracks you and tell you, tells you when you're getting low on, on funds under your contract. We'll give you a warning where where y'all using the state system or were you, um, are you just paying from POs or how are y'all taking care of that? We're actually from purchase orders, but uh we're just moved we at that time we had just moved to Work day and we moved in work there in 2021. So y'all made a transition also in, in, in how you were processing payments. Uh, question. back for procurement, um. You said y'all talk this over and this would be the easiest way to go back and, and maybe backdate a contract. How often has that happened or how often is, is that a practice, uh, Um, not often. Every time that it is, every time that it has happened, we bring it before, um, before you all to, to ask for a ratification of it. So since I have been, um, At TSS I can think of two other ones. So 2 other times and you've been at TSS how long approximately one year. And so 2 times in a year, so it happens more often than we would like, I would say. All right, just wanted to make certain. Thank you. Thank you Representative Beatty. Senator Hammer, you want back in? what I want when this is done. I want to ask Rebecca one really short question. All righty. Members, any other questions for the group at the table now, UAPB. Everybody's good? OK. Thank you for coming down. Rebecca, you're Rebecca. Hello Rebecca Haley, University of Arkansas. All right, Senator Hammer, you're ready. When, when the UFA, and I, I would ask this of all, you just have to be the lucky one this morning, but when you have a go through a selection process for, uh, contractors such as the architectural firm that was under discussion a while ago, our architectural firms that were in discussion a while ago. Do you give any weighted value in looking at the company's history as far as their positions on matters like DEI or other things, uh, that we give a lot of attention to here as far as, you know, how we, uh, are, are being cautious about going off into that area. I would, I would need to check to see, but I don't, I don't recall anything, but like I said, I'd like to verify and check that. I wish you would verify and check what the, what the background research is of who you choose to award contracts to and do they align with the values and principles that have been represented in, in this state of, as of late. I'd like you to do that, please and get with me. Thank you. All right, members, any other questions for Rebecca? OK, I'm pretty sure you can go ahead and sit down now. All right, members, any other questions on the items that we reviewed so far. All right. Seeing none, we have a hold on number 11, that is the University of Arkansas. Um Uh, UA UA system contract. We, we do not have a hold on 14. Oh, I'm She let it go. Representative Kavanaugh let it go. I think she got the explanation she needed. I, I will say this to the folks from UAPB. Um, please get the information that was requested by Representative Kavanaugh to staff so we can get that sent out to all the members of the committee and that needs to be done today before we get back to ALC tomorrow, OK? OK, alright, so without objection, we're gonna review all contracts except for number 11. And we are ratifying the contract on number 14, so without objection, that's what we're doing. And Kathy, that takes us to number E3. Mr. Chairman, we don't have any E3 this month. Those are the E3. No? OK. Good. E4. We'll move on to E4 now. Uh, these are the out of state contracts. So the first one is ASU and this is providing chiller repair services for the university. 2 is for the UI call center management, uh, that's for the Department of Commerce division of Workforce Services. Number 3 is the Department of Corrections. Uh, this is for their crop hauling services, uh, number 4 on page 14 is the Department of Education. This is the new contract that they have now for their education freedom accounts and tutoring grants, and this is with Cleo going back to the original provider, uh, number 5 is DHS, uh, with public consulting group. Uh, this is a contract that's done as a sole source a justification it'll be in your, uh, Goldenrod packet on pages 1 and 2, the first page was the letter about the ratification, so the second, uh, the next two pages are uh dealing with DHS, um, this is their cost allocation proprietary software and services and what they note, uh, and what OSP responded was that they awarded the contract originally with this vendor back in 2012 through an RFP process and they, uh, the vendor used proprietary web hosting software, thus bearing another vendor for um, for me from the mechanism to track necessary and detailed financial reporting requirements. So OSP has proved them to continue with a new contract as a sole source justification. Number 6 is DHS and this is for their SDM assessment system on amendment to that contract number 7 on the next page, uh, DHS for health insurance premium payments, uh, number 8 is DHS with health management systems and this is for their Medicaid third party liability automated data matching program that's a new contract, number 9. up against some contracts for the Department of Parks, Heritage and tourism. The first one is a new contract to establish a contract for the digitization and preservation of a wide variety of film media for Arkansas State Archives, number 10, um, is a special procurement and it is found on page 5 of your golden rod packet. Uh, this is with Alta planning design, and this has to do with the Delta Heritage Trail. It's an ongoing project, uh, they've been. the federal grants and foundation funding grants and so a special procurement is being requested to continue this project and OSP has approved that. Number 11 is the Department of Public Safety, uh, state crime lab, 11 and 12 are both for the same, uh, there are amendments to existing contracts they have where they're outsourcing up to 1000 property cases, residential and commercial burglary, uh, the blood samples and DNA samples. In order to get that entered into the um CODIS system, number 13 is for unarmed security guard services, that's the Department of Transformation and Shared Services, um, and that's for buildings located in Little Rock, number 14 also for TSS is for credential transparency description, language, and registry, that's a cloud-based library that maintains all the information on various credentials. Uh, diplomas, certificates, licenses, etc. Number 15 is Northwest Arkansas Community College. Uh, this is for a project to improve student services preventing workday inefficiencies and decreasing workday security rests, risks, excuse me, number 16 is Southeast Arkansas College and energy performing performance contract and finally number 17 UCA, uh, this is their group term life, death and dismemberment insurance. Coverage. Those are the out of state contracts on today's agenda. All right. Thank you, Kathy. uh, Representative Richard, Scott Richardson, you have a question? I do uh your contract number 5. Uh, DHS All right, if we could get some up here from DHS. Welcome back, you go ahead and introduce yourself again for the record. Sarah Cunningham, Office of Procurement with DHS. Laurie McDonald, Chief of Staff, DHS. Missy Banks's deputy secretary for Operations and Budget. Thank you. All right, Representative, you're ready. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, good morning. Uh, thank you guys for being here. Just, uh, I'm I'm a little curious on this, uh, on the justification associated with a sole source for, uh, I guess it's PCG, um, and the justification being that essentially they're holding our data hostage. So, thank you for the question, um, and I would definitely couch that a little bit differently, um, this has been a long-standing partnership between us and the vendor, um, they provide several services, uh, the algorithm is one great portion of that and then they also do ongoing training with us. They do quarterly development of our cost allocation plan, which we then Give to our federal partners and then when federal partners review that and have questions, they come back to us for clarification, and so it's really a partnership between our state finance cost allocation team and PCG is our professional vendor, um, and that is done very well and it allows us to maximize our federal draws. We do go in and using this data and other data, um, adjust and make federal draws on a daily basis. on over 1086 grants that we manage in addition to the major Medicaid grant. OK, but the justification that was presented here. Is that it's proprietary in the way that they store this data and then another group could not Come in and take that, pull that data out. Is that accurate? So that is accurate. We did an RFP selection, um, we did, uh, select them through a competitive process, and they are a vendor for over 35 states, um, and there are very few to any other vendors in this space and given, uh, our long-standing relationship to us, it would cost us more money and additional training to pivot to another vendor selection. we really feel that this is uniquely the only vendor in the space who could give us this service level with the complexity of our finances. OK, I, I appreciate all of, of what you said. I'm still coming back to the point, uh, forgive me, Mr. Chair. Still coming back to the point that the justification essentially that you've provided is that. This vendor has this data in a proprietary way, this data that belongs to the state of Arkansas and essentially has it in a format where we could not bring in another vendor and get that data we went through another RFP selection, there are terms and conditions in the contract, which absolutely allows us access back to our data and we can certainly get that and pivot to another vendor solution if we felt that that were available in the market, however, we feel that there's not another vendor capable or similarly situated to providing this this service at this time, but we absolutely can and would and do have access to our own data. OK, thank you for that. I, I'm gonna hop out for a minute and I may jump back in. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Kavanaugh, you recognize, mine for the Department of Education. Representatives is yours for DHS? OK. Representative Cavanaugh I'm gonna skip you if you'll get back in. I'll get Beatty first. Sorry, Representative Beatty, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've kind of fall on them back up on, um, what Representative Richardson just said regarding our data and, and it being held in in their proprietary software, you say we have access to it. Do, does the department back that information up from their system, and you maintain that within the agency and the department or is it, you know, what, what likelihood and what protections do we have should something happen to their system, uh, to gather our information. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. I'm gonna call it Jeff Dean. He's the CIO for our agency. So thank you so much. Uh, Jeff Dean, DHS CIO. So, uh, and I know they talked about it like being a data system. This is actually software as a service, so the vendor owns the software, uh, that does the functions, and there's two primary functions that, that, uh, this does. One, it does, uh, random moment and time studies and time studies for federal cost allocation purposes. That's data we have that historical data, yes, we have that saved and everything, uh, and it's not something that we would replicate to another system, we would just build out a new system if we were to do that. And more importantly, it does our cost allocation planning and we do have copies of that cost allocation plan for the feds. So the software part of this, uh, which is the proprietary nature of it. Uh, there's not another vendor that can come in and support the software owned by this vendor, so that's a, a small portion of the contract, uh, a larger portion of the contract is the services they provide to manage our cost allocation plan. So I'll note that the previous contract, uh, year 7 of that contract is the same amount as the sole source justification. So there was $0 increase going to this sole source justification and the reason we picked sole source justification over special is because we could do another multi-year agreement. All right, so my, I, I think you addressed my concerns dealing more with the, you know, that this not so much a housing of information, but, uh, for your, your time studies and the delivery of that ease of delivery of information to the the agencies that you report to on the grant administration. So I think that cleared up my question. Thank you. Thank you, Representative. Representative Richardson, is your question still for? OK, yeah, I'm gonna ask you real quick. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that answer, um, software as a service, uh, it is, of course, oftentimes very proprietary, so I, I appreciate that. My question runs right back around. I want to make sure I understand there is no data. That they are housing that we would need to take to a new system if we move to a new system. We might want to get dumps out of that data cause it might be in a different format than we have it, but we do have copies of, of the plan and, and everything, so, uh, we would want it maybe for historical purposes, which we do get regular dumps we're able to pull that down in Excel format monthly and it's used for our federal submissions of our cost allocation plans, so we have copies of all the data, it just might be easier to use in the format that they have it in, and we might require a, a dump of that which is Misty has already pointed out, is in the contract at the end of the contract, we would be entitled to that data. Wonderful. I appreciate the answers. Great. Thank you, Representative. All right members not saying more questions for DHS. All right, y'all are dismissed. Thank you. All right, Representative. Kavanaugh. Thank you. Mine's for the Department of Education. Department of Education, come on down. Good morning. Introduce yourself for the record and Greg Rogers, Department of Education. Darryl Smith, Department of Education Assistant Commissioner Office School Choice. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, mine's going to be dealing with your contract number 4 in the out of state contracts. My question is, you know, we've had some trouble with the Freedom accounts and the way that they had been handled prior. Um, part of that goes a good portion goes with the vendor, but the department also made some misstep. Should I say, during that process. Um, during that misstep process, a lot of, um, I would say parents and people using them actually lost a little faith in the ability for the freedom accounts, and I know we're moving to a new contract. Um, this new contract though, isn't it uh inclusive contract. It only deals with a certain part of it. And the other part that the state's going to have to provide that the department's gonna have to provide. Why did Billy do y'all have? and what expertise do y'all have to provide that service. So we don't have another issue that we had in the past. So if I may ask for a clarifying question. So could you, could you explain to me what you, when you said uh the department had some missteps. Well, I mean, I think there was, there was issues with that whole situation with it, and it's not 100% on the vendor. Part of it was the way that was handled in the department also, so I mean I, I'm not gonna go into details because, I mean, I would be here all day, to be honest with you. So, but my question is about this contract is what sureties do we have that the department's gonna be able to handle the, their part of what has to be done with this, because this contract doesn't handle it all. Well, if I may respectfully disagree with you just for a touch. I, I think 99% of all the problems that we had stemmed from the from the uh previous vendor, the vendor that we're moving from, which cre which created additional problems. Now, moving forward to the new thing, the, uh, the new contract actually does is pretty inclusive because they are partnering with the, the application portion of that with the facts, so class wallet is partnering with facts, who's going to handle the application side of the project. Obviously Class wallet is, you know, we've, we've had, we dealt with them before as far as the fund disbursement, whether it's from reimbursement or through invoices to schools or whatever. So we feel pretty confident that it is an inclusive contract. So they're going to handle every part of it. Is that what you're saying? Yes, ma'am. There's no part that the department's gonna have to handle dealing with, with these freedom accounts, we'll deal with the approval process still just like we have before, right? That's my question. How, how confident are we that we're gonna be able to do that, that we're not getting a system that's gonna help us do all of it, because the last thing we need is for parents to still who have a bad taste from the last experience. to continue to have those experiences, you know, those bad tastes. That's not what we're wanting for, for the citizens of Arkansas. Absolutely, I would agree with you 100% that's not what we want, and I feel very confident that we will be able to manage this process and the approval process in a much more seamless manner than we did before. OK, why is that? Well, I think first of all we're more familiar with Class wallet. I think their system is a little bit, um, easier for us to manage a little bit, and there's not as many problems in the front end. Uh, the previous vendor had a number of problems that we were having to solve on the go. And so it was hard to approve things when the system was broken and so it wasn't the approval process that was broken. It was the process of getting us the information so that we could approve it. So, so that's why I had a little bit of uh, one a little bit of clarification of your original statement to make sure that we were on the same page there. So, uh, we, we've, you know, we, we were with Class wallet, the process that we had previous to that year one, which we didn't seem to have, uh, uh, you know, very many problems at all. In the approval process and while we will have more people in the process this year and more people participants in the program. Uh, we do believe that the approval process will go smoothly. OK, and if we had such a good experience with Class wallet, how can we ended up going with this other vendor that we didn't be honest, we didn't have a good experience with. I would agree with that 100%, yes. Um, we went through the RFP process as it was stated and defined by law, student first won that contract, uh, you all, uh, expressed your concerns. We had the same concerns and uh talked with them about those concerns in the discussion phase. They assured us that they could mitigate those concerns and build up to meet our expectations for this program and for the state of Arkansas. They did not. We also promised you that if they did not meet their, uh, you know, fulfill their part of the contract that we would leave, which we are. And so we are just kind of holding ourselves and you all to the, to the word that we gave back in 6 months ago. So you're thinking that you're able to handle the approval process much better because you're familiar with class. it and you could think that it's gonna be a more seamless than what it, the prior one was. Yes, yes, ma'am. OK, all right, thank you so much. Bye. Thank you, Representative Senator Hammer, is your question for this group? All right, you're recognized. Thank you. I'm just trying to remember of that previous contract, were, were there any penalties associated with that contract that could have been, um, recouped from them for failure to provide to the level that they had, uh, contracted under. Uh, yes, sir. And we are going through that recruitment process right now. We've worked with them to when we ended the contract, we've, uh, they've agreed to repay us a little over $300,000 of the total amount that they've they've received thus far for their services. So with that, that would have had some direct bearing on your decision not to continue the contract with them and to go with the new contractor. Is that a fair statement? Yes. Yeah, I mean, they were, they were not meeting certain deadlines that we had given to him. We'd met with them and then once, and Darryl's team met often with him, and once we knew that the deadlines couldn't be met, we notified them of our intent to move on and cancel this contract. OK. And were they given an opportunity to bid the second time around then? No. OK. But, but you're actively pursuing those damages from that contract. OK, thank you. All right. Thank you, Senator. Seeing no further questions, you guys are dismissed. Thank you. Remember that is item E4 and without objection, these items stand reviewed. That takes us to item E5, Miss Cathy, you're up. Mr. Chairman. These are the in-state contracts, and we begin on page 20 of the packet, Arkansas Public Defender Commission is the first one and we're uh adding additional funds to a contract for indigent parent council representation to increase the caseload for an individual. 2 is also Arkansas Service, uh, commission, uh, excuse me, is different. It's Arkansas Public Service Commission for Economic and Financial consulting services, consulting services to the commission. Next is the Department of Commerce. This is insurance department, uh, this is for maintaining their online training portal for insurance agents, brokers, and assistors, uh, number 4 is Department of Corrections, division of Corrections, and this is for their aerial application services number 5. Department of Corrections. This is for providing waste disposal services for the North Central unit number 6 Department of Corrections for waste disposal services at the Grimes and McPherson's units. Number 7 is the Department of Education, and this is with Tankersley Foods. It's an amendment to the contract they have for food storage and distribution services number 8, Department of Education. This is for their Capitol Mall janitorial services number 9 Department of Finance Administration, Charles. Support services as for process server number 10, uh, Department of Finance Administration Revenue Services for DFA Raglan Building janitorial Services. Number 11 is the Department of Health. This is for collection removal, transport and disposal of medical waste from local health units, number 12 and we're on page 25, is DHS with Dana's house for emergency shelter services number 6, I mean 13 is, uh, DHS. This is for their mailing services statewide with Arkansas mailing services, number 14 DHS. This is for a physician who serves as the medical director at the Conway Human Development Center, number 15 DHS and this is for dental treatment management, uh, treatment services, uh, to adjudicated youth residing in the care of DYS numbers 16 through 18. These are all parks, heritage and tourism contracts, and this is for their natural area conservation and sewer ship. controlled burning and fire line, uh, installation programs, number 19 is the Department of Public Safety state crime lab. This is for their cadaver transport services number 2, transformation and Shared Services Building Authority for janitorial services at 900 West Capital, uh, Department of Veterans Affairs. This is an amendment to the contract that they have for laundry services for their veteran's home in Fayetteville and North Little Rock, number 1. is University of Arkansas for real estate advisory services number 23 is um UALR with Mangum Holcom. Uh, this is media related, uh, services that they are providing the university number 24 UALR for landscaping services at the UALR campus, and those are all of the in-state contracts on today's agenda. Alright, Representative Hammer Senator Hammer, excuse me, you're recognized. Thank you Miss GHS please. DHS Laurie McDonald, DHS chief of staff. Sarah Cunningham, Office of Procurement, DHS. Good morning. It's on 13 on the mailing, um. Is that mailing just for regular postage or is that certified letters and things that you are required to send out a certain way. So that mailing contract is housed with the division of County operations, and they actually, um, this services regular mail, but it goes for all the eligibility notices. So it would be regular. I'm not sure if they're certified male accompanied into it, but it's not generically DHS mail's specific for eligibility notifications. OK, could we get I think Mary Franklin wants to come, can we get her to come? She looks like she's trying to get up there, yeah. Just introduce yourself if you don't mind, for the record and see if you can answer his question. Good morning Mary Franklin, director of division of County operations in this contract is for our eligibility notices, renewal packets, things like that. It would typically not be anything that we would send certified. But just Just normal course of business, we send a lot of mail right quick, I'll have offline, but just a couple of quick ones. So are you required by federal law because I see 51% of this is federal funding. Are there requirements as to how you notify people like you have to do it through traditional mail. So, um, CMS requires that we default to postmail unless the client opts in. And, um, we do the same thing for snap notices, FNS allows us a waiver in order to allow clients if they choose to get things electronically rather than paper, uh, and we do that for all programs. If the client opts to electronic, then we do that. OK, one last question, do you get a high return of mail where undeliverable. We do get returned mail. I don't know that I would say a high volume of returned mail. But yes, we do get return mail. I'll get what y'all. Thanks for that too, chair. Thank you, Senator. A real quick question on number 14, the division of Developmental Disabilities Services. This Medical director at the Conway Human Development Center. Is that not a full-time position? I will have to ask Director Bri to come to the table to answer that. Good morning. Mhm. Good morning, Jennifer Brasse, director of DDS. Thank you. Um, the economy of Human Development Center, this is a position for the medical director. Is that a full-time position or not? I am sorry I am new and so I can definitely find that out and get back to you, the question would be is it full time or not? And, and. Also, if it is full time, why is it done on a contract basis instead of, you know, through medical director being a state employee, that'd be kind of what I'm trying to figure out. Oh, and the third question, do all of the human development centers have their own medical director. I will check into that and get back to you. I appreciate that. You can just get it to staff and we'll get it dispersed. Thank you very much. Thank you. Sure. When you're checking that, would you find out if it's possible that because we're going in the direction of, um, um, Lost the term. Anyway, we're a doctor can be in one place and be at play, uh, whatever you call it, telehealth. Thank you, had a brain freeze. Find out if it's possible that you could have one doctor that could oversee all of the facilities using telehealth in order to maybe improve efficiencies, accessibility, and also finances, if you would check into that while you're doing it for the chair, please. Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much, Representative Kavanaugh, is your question for DHS? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, my question's gonna go um, along with the postage. So my question is, does this amount actually include the postage, the actual cost of the postage that we pay to the US Postal Service. Or is it just the service to get everything out. Representative Kavanaugh, we'd like to confirm that rather than give you potentially the wrong answer there. Let me please confirm that. Yeah, you'll give me that information, I appreciate it. Thank you. And if you don't mind, try to get that to us as soon as you can today, so we have that before ALC meeting tomorrow. All right, uh, no other questions. You're free. Thank you for coming down. I remember seeing no, no further questions without objection to these items stand reviewed. And that takes us to item F. Mr. Chairman, we have 2 reports for you today. The first one beginning on, uh, page 1, F1 is previously reviewed services contracts report, um, and then the other 1 F2, uh, is, are the contracts that are being executed that fall under the threshold for legislative review. That's all of the items on today's agenda. Our members, that is all the reports and communication we have. Is there any other business? See Nan, thank you very much for your participation, and with that we are adjourned.