Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County attorney recommends joining national class-action settlement over uniform contract; board to consider April 1
Summary
The Bay County county attorney recommended that the county consider joining a nationwide class-action settlement related to a uniform rental/cleaning contract; the county spent roughly $1.1 million under the contract over several years, staff said.
Get email alerts on the Procurement Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Bay County County Attorney reported to the board that a nationwide class-action settlement involving a uniform contract is available and recommended that the county authorize the attorney's office to join the settlement and file a claim. The county's purchasing records show about $1.1 million spent under the contract over several years, the attorney said; the settlement fund is capped at $45 million and the settlement documents allocate a maximum of 5% of an eligible claimant's expenditures as the reference recovery amount, subject to proration if total claims exceed the fund.
Commissioners asked whether there is any cost to the county to participate and whether purchasing or the clerk's office had identified overbilling. The county attorney said there is no cost to join the class-action and that the county has not found evidence in routine purchasing and pre-audit checks to suggest it was overcharged. The clerk's office was described as performing standard pre-audit review of invoices.
Because the county has until April 1 to accept the settlement, staff proposed returning this item to the board on April 1 with the option for the board to authorize participation after any additional review the board requests. Commissioners discussed the trade-off between the administrative burden of digging through years of invoices and the potential benefit of a settlement recovery; one commissioner suggested the clerk's staff could do a targeted review before the April 1 decision.
No final action was recorded March 18; the county attorney asked for authorization to proceed with the claims process and the board agreed to consider the question at the April 1 meeting.
