Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners strike proposed lighting contract, order RFP by Dec. 31
Summary
Utah County commissioners removed a proposed lighting contract from the agenda after attorneys flagged contract language giving the vendor possession of LED bulbs and a Texas choice-of-law clause; commissioners instructed staff to issue an RFP by 12/31/2017 to resolve procurement and ownership questions.
The county commission removed a proposed $0-capital lighting contract from its regular agenda and directed staff to issue a request for proposals by Dec. 31, 2017, after county attorneys raised legal and procurement concerns.
Ben Vanoy of the county attorney’s office told commissioners the current draft would allow the vendor (identified in the meeting as TEU) to retain possession of LED bulbs during a seven-year term and said the contract included choice-of-law language that would favor Texas. “The main issue that remains is who controls possession, who have maintained possession of the bulbs during the term of the agreement,” Vanoy said. He added that, under the vendor’s draft, if there were a breach the vendor could take the bulbs back while the county would still owe monthly service payments.
Commissioners questioned whether a savings-funded, zero-capital model still requires an RFP under county procurement rules and whether multiple bidders would respond. One commissioner said the program was presented as producing savings and requiring no capital outlay, but stressed the county must avoid committing to terms that leave it liable if savings do not materialize. A purchasing agent, Robert Baxter, was cited by staff as sharing concerns about procurement compliance.
Speaker 3 moved to strike the item from the regular agenda with the understanding an RFP would be prepared and released by Dec. 31, 2017; Speaker 2 seconded. The motion passed on a recorded 3-0 vote.
Commissioners also asked that the RFP include specified security-center and background-check requirements and that purchasing and Public Works be involved in developing the requirements so alternatives can be compared. Vanoy and commissioners said they would continue negotiating contract language to ensure ownership and risk provisions protect the county.
The action leaves the lighting proposal off the books while the county issues an RFP and works through procurement and contract revisions.
