10/1/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

days notice, he decided to bide his time. Yesterday, however, he received a copy of the contract and it changed his thinking drastically. Mr. Chalmers emphasized that it is not his intent today to override the bidding process but rather an attempt to alert this Commission to the flaws in the proposed contract. Hopefully, it will result in a workshop that will revise the contract and protect the interests of the County, County employees, and the public. Mr. Chalmers pointed out the following items in the Services Agreement that he perceived as flawed or not following the rfp: 1) Names Personnel Director Ron Baker as the "Administrator". 2) The hold harmless clauses throughout the contract are to protect BCBSF. 3) Article 6.8 "Any prior agreements, promises, negotiations or representations, either verbal or written, relating to the subject matter of this Agreement and not expressly set forth in this Agreement are of no force and effect." With this statement, Mr. Duncan had great doubt about BCBS's representative's statement at the BCC meeting in July that the agreement would have a 30 -day termination notice. 4) Deposit of $32,576.13 is the amount needed for the aggregate premium. The proposal back in July gave the figure as $30,018.38. Mr. Chalmers believed the $2500 difference was due to mathematics. However, it points out that changes between other documents and this document is that whatever is in the proposed Agreement will prevail. 4) Section 1 states that this is a 2 -year contract, running from October 1, 1996 to September 30, 1998. He'was,-under, the impression during the bidding process that this was a 1, -Year contract. This statement gives great doubt about the ability of the County to get out from under this contract anytime within that 2 -year period. 5) There is no 30 -day cancellation mentioned in the Agreement except at the end of the 2 -year period. There is a 90 -day cancellation notice for other periods, but not what we were lead to believe. 6) Article 3.1 "and that the Administrator will not for any purpose, under ERISA or otherwise, be deemed to be the "Plan Administrator" of the Group Health Plan or a "fiduciary" with respect to the Group Health Plan." Mr. Chalmers believed this was the reason why Mr. Baker was named Administrator. 7) Article 3.4 "The Administrator shall make available its Preferred Provider Organization Program(s) to covered group members and their covered dependents, as set forth in the Group Health Plan." Mr. Chalmers just wanted the Commission to be aware that there is a big difference between a preferred provider and a participating provider. He noted that the term "preferred provider" is used very loosely in this agreement. 67 OCTOBER 1, 1996 BOOK FAG E 310 I