Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners grant procurement exemption to allow contract with local mortuary for body transport; debate over bidding process
Summary
After testimony from justices of the peace that transportation of deceased is a sensitive, often single‑provider service, the court voted 4‑1 to exempt the purchase from competitive bidding to allow a contract with the local provider (Tranquil); purchasing recommended an RFP or sole‑source posting and the court asked staff to secure a contract and keep procurement steps consistent with county law.
The Williamson County Commissioners Court voted to grant a discretionary exemption from competitive bidding so the county can contract with a local mortuary to provide transportation of the deceased, a service justices of the peace described as sensitive and often supplied by a single local provider.
"Transportation of the deceased is a very sensitive service being provided, and it does provide public health and safety services," said Justice of the Peace Angela Williams, who urged the court to use the discretionary exemption in the Local Government Code so JPs can continue to serve families and public‑safety needs without procurement delays. Several JPs described long response‑time concerns if the county were to rely on out‑of‑county providers.
Joy Simonton, county purchasing agent, told the court she had researched how other counties procure similar services: some Texas counties competitively procure transportation of the deceased while others use sole‑source or contract approaches. Simonton said the purchasing office can pursue a sole‑source posting (which requires a 14‑day public notice) or an RFP; she recommended an RFP with JP involvement in specifications and scoring if the court seeks competitive procurement.
County legal counsel and commissioners discussed legal risk. County Attorney Hal (last name not provided in transcript) said the standard for judicial review would be whether the court's action was arbitrary and capricious and noted that an exemption should be supported by factual findings showing the public‑health and safety need. Several judges and commissioners said they would be comfortable granting the exemption if a written contract with the provider included a termination clause and protections for the county.
Commissioner Boles moved to exempt contracting with the identified local provider for reasons of public health and safety and asked procurement and legal staff to negotiate a contract with the provider; Commissioner Covey seconded. The motion carried 4‑1. Commissioners said the court would, in the background, pursue either a sole‑source posting or an RFP so the county has documented procurement steps and an option to change providers later if warranted.
The court's action authorizes an exemption to allow the JPs to continue their operations and directs purchasing and legal staff to formalize a contract with the local provider while following required procurement notices or RFP steps in the background.
Next steps: county purchasing staff will prepare contract language for court approval, post a sole‑source notice if applicable and may run an RFP involving JP offices in developing specifications and scoring.
