►
From YouTube: Government Contract Review Committee - (4-12-22)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
morning
we
have
a
quorum.
I
appreciate
everybody's
indulgence
and
patience
as
we
gather
the
numbers
here,
but
with
that
can't
we
please
call
the
row.
A
D
A
A
D
A
A
This
is
one
that's
been
deferred
for
several
months
and
for
members
of
the
committee
you'll
note
that
under
our
personal
service
contract
list
for
this
month
we
have
number
31,
which
is
access,
forensic
taxology
and
I'm
not
going
to
try
to
belabor
this
discussion.
But
this
has
been
a
long
time
and
getting
resolved,
and
certainly
long
before
you
were
here
but
appreciate
the
work
you
have
done
on
this.
So
I'm
assuming
now
that
this
contract,
the
national
medical
services
is
has
ended.
Is
that
correct?
A
E
It
is
all
but
ended,
and,
mr
chairman,
what
we
have
what
we
propose
to
do.
We
have
entered
into
the
new
contract
with
access
which
it's
been
in
operation
for
about
a
month.
The
report
from
the
medical
examiner
and
from
the
coroner
community
is
that
it's
going
very
well
they're
very
pleased
with
the
service.
E
For
this
reason,
it
is
possible
that
their
their
some
of
the
samples
that
they've
already
tested
there
could
be
additional
testing
that
is
needed,
or
there
could
be
a
sample
that
might
be
sent
to
nms
by
mistake
by
some
a
coroner
who
is
just
in
the
habit
of
sending
it
to
that
lab,
and
we
do
not
want
a
replay
of
the
situation
that
that
we
encountered
last
year,
where
the
contract
with
the
the
then
existing
vendor
expired,
but
they
had
not
completed
all
of
the
testing
so
that,
as
you
will
recall,
created
an
unfortunate
delay
in
some
of
that
work.
E
So
if
we
just
leave
this
contract
open,
we
think
that
there
will
be
very
little
additional
activity,
but
it
will
prevent
any
delay
in
the
event
that
additional
testing
is
needed
on
samples
in
their
hands.
A
I
appreciate
that,
certainly
we
don't
want
any
undisruption
in
the
continuity
of
services
for
these
situations
with
this
contract,
its
effective
date
is
through
june
30
of
2022.
It
will
not
extend
beyond
that
period.
Will
it
no.
E
Sir,
no,
it
will
not
we
and
we
may
terminate
it
even
before
then,
and
we
are
monitoring
the
activity
on
that
contract
fact.
I
think
we
have
a
meeting
planned
with
that
vendor
next
week.
We
just
want
to
make
sure
that
all
of
the
coroners
have
the
word
about
the
change
and
we've
we've
gone
to
great
care
to
communicate
that,
in
collaboration
with
our
friends
and
the
coroner's
association.
A
And
that's
the
primary
reason
I
pulled
contract
number
31
with
access
forensic
taxology
to
kind
of
talk
about
this
in
in
concert
with
the
one
national
medical
services.
A
You
know
this
was
a
very
appear
to
be
a
very
disjointed
process,
I'm
going
from
memory
here,
but
I
think
when
we
pulled
this
contract
originally
that
there
were
only
two
vendors
that
had
applied
the
rfp,
I'm
assuming
that's
the
situation
this
time
as
well.
E
I
think
we
actually
only
had
one
to
to
be
honest
with
you,
but
the
good
news
is:
is
that
it's
we
think
it's
a
good
one.
We
think
it's.
The
contract
is
going
very
well
and
of
course,
this
is
the
vendor
that
we
had
before
nms
and
and
I'm
happy
to
report
that
the
the
pricing
on
this
access
contract
is
exactly
the
same.
It's
the
last
access
contract,
so
there's
been
no
increase
in
the
cost.
A
Well,
when
we
had
this
discussion
last
summer,
I
think
it
was
july
meeting
when
we
first
pulled
this
contract.
I
think
I
asked
the
same
questions.
How
many
have
responded
to
the
rfp
at
the
time?
I
think
I
was
told
that
only
national
medicals
had
because
access
did
not
meet
the
terms
and
condition
of
rfp
that
apparently
there's
some
administrative
problem
with
that.
A
E
No,
that
that
that's
correct
they
they
did
not.
We
only
had
one
proposal
and
you
are
correct
in
the
renewal
last
year
which
predated
my
service
in
the
justice
cabinet.
E
But,
as
I
understand
there
were
two
proposals,
but
one
of
them
was
was
disqualified
as
not
being
responsive
to
the
to
the
rfp
and
so
nms
was
only
was
deemed
to
be
the
only
qualified
bidder
and
then
a
protest
resulted
from
that
and-
and
there
was
sort
of
a
long,
tangled
history
to
this-
but
I'm
I'm
pleased
to
say
that
I
think
we
are
just
about
at
the
end
of
it
and
I
think
we're
the
coroner
community,
as
we
understand,
is
very
happy
with
the
services
that
they're
getting
now
and
the
same
would
be
true
of
the
medical
examiner's
office
and
and
again
the
the
pricing
is
the
same
as
it
was
under
the
last
axis.
A
But
then
again
we
were
told
they
were
the
only
vendor
that
met
the
qualifications
rfp
and,
to
me,
that's
a
little
bit
disturbing
that
we'd
paid
that
additional
cost
when
there
must
have
just
been
a
technical
error
in
the
rfp.
E
We
had
considerable
discussion
about
how
to
get
the
word
out
and
frankly,
we
would
have
hoped
to
have
generated
more
proposals,
because
obviously
competition
is
a
good
thing
in
in
in
this
area,
as
as
with
most
others,
and
so
we
we
went
to
considerable
lengths
to
make
sure
that
the
rfp
was
circulated.
I
think
we
may
have
even
extended
the
time
at
one
point,
but
but
this
is
where
we
ended
up,
and
it
is,
I
think,
a
pretty
narrow
market
in
our
region
when
it
comes
to
vendors.
A
Well,
it
doesn't
do
any
good
to
respond,
because
this
company
is
going
to
get
it
anyway
and
I'm
not
suggesting
that's
the
case
this
time,
but
it's
just
a
concern
of
mine,
particularly
when
we
receive
sole
source
contracts
which
we
see
multiple
of,
but
I
think
this
is
certainly
hopefully
been
a
learning
experience
for
a
lot
of
people
as
we
go
forward
these
contracts.
But
I
appreciate
your
work
and
hearing
our
committee's
concerns
about
how
this
contract
was
awarded,
and
hopefully
we
won't
run
in
these
obstacles
in
the
future.
E
And
I
just
I
would
like
to
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
as
well
as
your
colleagues
on
the
committee
for
your
your
work
in
this
matter
and
and
for
your
patients
as
we've
worked
through.
It.
A
Well,
I
try
to
tell
people
that
when
you
come
before
this
committee,
you
should
view
that
as
a
good
thing,
because
we're
kind
of
like
the
good
housekeeping
seal
of
approval.
If
we
approve
it,
then
you
know
it's
a
good
contract,
and
if
we
don't,
then
that
means
that
we
have
questions
and
certain
our
constitution
will
have
questions.
But
I
appreciate
your
work
on
this
since
you've
been
part
of
the
cabinet.
The
questions
from
any
of
our
committee
members
co-chair.
D
C
A
Aye
motion
carries:
is
there
a
motion
on
31
for
the.
A
A
A
Okay,
next
order
of
business
consideration
agenda,
including
the
deferred
list,
the
personal
service
contract
list.
Psc
amendment
list
memorandum
of
agreement
list
memorandum
of
agreement,
amendment
list
in
the
kentucky
entertainment
incentive
program
agreement
list,
except
for
those
items
selected
for
further
review.
Is
there
a
motion
to
consider
the
contract's
review
without
objection.
A
A
Aye
motion
carries
next
time
on
the
pull
list
with
transportation
office
secretary
is
number
50
on
the
routine
psc
green
list.
This
contract
was
pulled
by
senator
southworth.
I
understand
she's
in
the
building.
We've
just
texted
her
to
see
if
she's
gonna
be
arriving
so
that
we
can
proceed
with
this
one.
But
if
representatives
are
here
with
transportation,
please
identify
yourself
for
the
record.
C
A
D
Yeah
to
better
understand
why
we're
exceeding
our
maximum
rate
guidelines
was
there
an
rfp
issued,
and
if
there
was
how
many
responses
did
you
have.
C
D
So
we
we
did
issue
an
rfp
and
we
had
six
responses.
Okay,
well
kind
of
follow
up.
Could
you
explain
what
this
firm
could
bring
to
the
table
in
regards
to
like
their
expertise
of
why
it
necessitates
exceeding
our
maximum
rate
guidelines.
C
You
want
me
to
take
a
stab
sure
gary
go
ahead:
okay!
Well,
this
particular
contract
is
primarily
needed
to
help
us
enter
into
an
interstate
cooperative
agreement
with
the
state
of
ohio
for
the
brent
spence
bridge,
a
major
project.
That's
currently
estimated
at
2.8
billion
dollars.
C
Dbl
the
firm
through
the
selection
process
really
demonstrated
not
only
a
understanding
of
the
project
given
their
locality
in
covington,
but
but
also
the
bi-state
development
agreement
that
we
had
entered
into
with
the
state
of
indiana
for
the
louisville
bridges
project,
bi-state
development
agreement
being
kind
of
a
parallel
document
to
what
we're
doing
with
the
interstate
cooperative
agreement,
so
dbl
really
demonstrated
their
their
knowledge
of
what
was
needed
for
negotiation
of
the
terms
and
conditions
of
this
interstate
cooperative
agreement,
more
so
than
the
other.
The
other
firms
pursuing
this.
D
Yes,
sir,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
looking
at
the
close
proximity
with
this
firm,
my
question
deals
exactly
with
that.
Will
there
be
any
with
such
close
proximity
where
the
construction
is
actually
going
to
take
place?
Will
there
be
any
conflict
with
them
in
handling
any
land
disputes
or
land,
taking
anything
with
eminent
domain
that
could
arise
out
of
this
project?.
F
Yes,
no
yeah.
Yes,
the
the
conflict
of
interest
issue
is
is
addressed
in
the
was
addressed
in
the
rfp
and
is
to
be
handled
on
a
case-by-case
basis
and
considered
by
the
secretary
of
the
transportation
cabinet
and
the
office
of
legal
services
to
ensure
that
there
are
no
direct
conflicts
with
with
the
firm.
The
firm
is
under
an
obligation
to
inform
the
cabinet
of
any
potential
or
existing
conflicts
as
they
arise
as
part
of
the
the
contract
agreement.
A
A
A
A
Apparently
not
and
folks,
I
appreciate
you
being
here
to
be
available
to
us
this
morning
and
I'm
sorry
that
we
drug
you
out
in
the
wee
hours
of
the
morning,
but
I
appreciate
you
being
available
to
us
and
but
that
is
our
emotion
on
46
memorandum
for
agreement
list.
Some
of
most
of
my
co-chair
cook,
seconded
by
senator
douglas,
also
pay
for
the
motion
vote.
I
all
opposed
vote
no
kim.
Please
call
the
room.
A
A
Aye
motion
carries
again
folks
appreciate
you
being
available
to
us
this
morning.
Final
items
on
the
agenda
are
two
exemption.
Requests
to
consider
number
first,
one
is
with
transportation.
Cabinet,
relates
an
exemption
from
the
committee's
routine
review
process
for
the
kytc's
aviation
economic
development
grant
agreements,
but
they
will
continue
to
provide
quarter
reports
to
expire
on
june
20,
30
2024.
A
Second,
is
a
board
of
veterinary
examiners,
requests
for
exemption
from
committee
policy
statement
number
99-4,
which
prohibits
contracts
from
crossing
the
biennium
for
the
purpose
of
hiring
a
new
legal
services
contractor
and
transferring
all
the
current
case
work
from
the
current
council.
So
the
board
doesn't
experience
a
loss
and
continuity.
The
legal
rate
is
125,
which
is
in
our
guidelines
and
100
percent,
easy
funds
to
expire
on
june
20th
2024
and
of
all
the
exemption
requests
we
get.
This
is
usually
the
the
most
frequent
because
it
does
cost
about
annual.
A
A
Aye
motion
carries
before
we
adjourn
our
next
meeting
in
may
is
tend
to
be
set
for,
may
10th
at
nine
o'clock
a.m.
In
this
room
as
usual
in
my
I
guess,
close
to
well
four
plus
years
on
this
committee.
I
believe
this
is
the
shortest
committee
meeting
we've
ever
had.