Health Department Forms Folder 0038, 2000-2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Late Human Service Contracts

140

120

100

so

60

40

20

Fy 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 2000

■ Avg. Days Late

As the graph illustrates, the average number of days that human service contracts are submitted to this Office for registration after the contract work has begun has almost doubled since 1996.

You also complain about our valid rejection of the Prince Hall Service Fund's improper contract extension. The original contract was awarded through an RFP process in 1996 with a July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997 term. The contract's 2 - one year renewal terms were, thereafter, exhausted. Last year, ACS submitted a one year time and money amendment, which is the maximum extension that can be accomplished under the relevant Procurement Policy Board Rule. In the documents submitted to this Office last year, ACS stated that a new RFP process was to be undertaken and new contracts would be in place by July 1, 2000. Nevertheless, ACS recently submitted for registration an additional 6 month extension. When we requested an explanation from ACS as to why the agency thought that an extension was allowable, it belatedly indicated that it was under the impression that it can continue extending contracts under the PPB transition rule. That is incorrect. ACS, however, could have extended the contract via a Negotiated Acquisition if there was a compelling need and only for the minimum time necessary. ACS did not do so.

Notwithstanding ACS' error, we have registered this extension and others. It would be unfair to penalize the contractor for MOC's failure to properly advise agencies of the appropriate use of the transition rule. Indeed, we see that MOC itself signed off on the inappropriate extension in its Independence Day weekend haste to clear up its backlog of day care contracts.

Also, while you represented that MOC processed the Day Care contracts quickly, no

NYC-WTC 000138182