Board of Estimates approves $62,517 payment to Zoo Office for services delivered without a valid contract

The Baltimore City Board of Estimates on March 19 approved a $62,517 payment to Zoo Office Incorporated for software services the Department of Health received while a valid contract was not in place.

The payment request was presented by Adam Manny, chief procurement officer, who told the board the invoices relate to licensing for environmental‑health software that had been contracted originally to Jaden Inc.; Jaden merged with Zoo Office and later operated under the Zoo Office name and TIN. "We're here today to ask permission to do an outstanding payment of $62,517 to the Zoo Office," Manny said, outlining a timeline that included a supervisor suspension and subsequent personnel actions that interrupted the normal requisition and contractor‑registration process.

The request was described as an "unauthorized procurement" because the city received services for the 2024–25 licensing year before a formal contract with the Zoo Office was in place. Manny said funds were encumbered and that a new contract covering 2025–28 was under legal review and expected to be brought back to the board within 60 to 90 days.

Comptroller Bill Henry voiced support for paying for services already received but pressed procurement on process improvements to prevent similar situations. "I don't have any problems with paying the people for the services that we already received," Henry said. He asked whether system changes could let staff change a vendor name on an existing requisition rather than canceling and recreating it. Manny said the procurement office will submit a Workday change request and is pursuing a contract lifecycle management system citywide; he also noted the office had hired a contract administrator to improve proactive tracking of contract expirations and renewals.

After questions, a motion to approve the payment was moved and seconded and the board approved the item by voice vote. Procurement staff noted there was a new contract pending legal review and that payment would not proceed until administrative requirements had been completed.

Why it matters: Procurement officials called the item a combination of a vendor name/TIN change and staffing disruptions that created a gap in contract authorization. The board approved payment so the vendor is compensated for services already provided while procurement finishes the formal contract process.

Votes at a glance: The board approved the payment by voice vote; no roll-call tally was provided in the transcript and no individual mover/seconder was recorded.