Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement And Inmate Care topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court rejects two pharmacy bids and tables two inmate dental payments after questioning
Summary
The purchasing agent recommended rejecting two bids for bid 2025-02; the court approved the rebid. Two requests to prepay inmate dental work were discussed at length and tabled pending counsel review and additional information.
Harrison County's purchasing office recommended rejecting two bids for pharmacy services under bid number 2025-02 and the commissioners unanimously approved a rebid. The court also considered two separate requests to authorize payment in advance for inmate dental work; both were tabled after commissioners raised questions about precedent, costs and responsibility for damaged dentures.
Purchasing agent Darla Haynes told the court that neither of the two bids — from Diamond Pharmacy and IPM — met all specifications. "One of them only bid strictly on the jail and left the indigent program completely out, and the other one did not include any liability insurance," Haynes said. On that basis, the court voted 4-0 to reject the bids and approve rebidding the procurement.
The court then considered two separate advance-payment requests from Imperial Family Dentistry for inmate dental services. One request sought payment of $3,179 for extraction of existing teeth and new dentures for inmate Ronald Fultz after staff reported the inmate’s partial denture had been damaged during a search. County officials said the jail nurse and purchasing had reviewed options and that some dentists quoted substantially higher figures; the county did not normally approve payment in advance.
Commissioners debated whether the county bore responsibility. Commissioner Timmons and others expressed concern about precedent and said more information was needed. "I just don't want to see a set of precedent like... I've got a toothache, got to be extracted," Timmons said, arguing for case-by-case review. The court asked counsel to review the requests in executive session and agreed to add both items to the next agenda so staff would not have to resubmit documentation.
Ending: Both advance-payment requests were tabled to allow the county to consult legal counsel, evaluate costs and determine how to proceed; the purchasing rebid was approved.
