Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al

Filing 3629

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/8/09 ORDERING that dfts shall renew the Mental Health Bed Projection Services contract with Navigant Consulting and/or execute a contract with John Misener of McManis Consulting prior to the expir ation of the existing contract on 12/31/09. Said contract shall be renewed or executed for a period of three addt'l yrs. Dfts shall report to the Court within 30 days on any remaining actions that must be taken to renew or execute the contract a nd any barriers to completing all necessary actions remaining to renew or execute the contract by 12/31/09. In the event that dfts determine, at any time, that an applicable state law or regulation must be waived in order to renew or execute the contract by 12/31/09, dfts shall immediately file a motion with this Court identifying any applicable law or regulation that must be waived, and requesting the Court enter an order waiving such provision. (Kastilahn, A)

1 PRISON LAW OFFICE DONALD SPECTER, Bar No. 83925 2 STEVEN FAMA, Bar No. 99641 1917 Fifth Street 3 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: [phone] THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY ­ 5 EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER CLAUDIA CENTER, Bar No. 158255 6 600 Harrison Street, Suite 120 San Francisco, CA 94107 7 Telephone: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiffs 9 10 11 12 RALPH COLEMAN, 13 14 v. Plaintiffs,

ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP MICHAEL W. BIEN, Bar No. 96891 MARK R. FEESER, Bar No. 252968 315 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: [phone] BINGHAM, McCUTCHEN, LLP WARREN E. GEORGE, Bar No. 53588 Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: [phone]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. Civ S 90-0520 LKK-JFM ORDER REGARDING NAVIGANT CONSULTING CONTRACT

15 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ORDER REGARDING NAVIGANT CONSULTING CONTRACT - CASE NO. CIV S 90-0520 LKK-JFM

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

[303883-1]

1

On October 20, 2006, this Court ordered that "Defendants shall contract with Navigant

2 Consultants to conduct annual population reviews and updates of their projections for mental health 3 program populations from 2007 through 2009." Order at ¶ 2 (Docket No. 1998). The Order further 4 provided that thereafter, "[D]efendants may obtain such population projections services through the 5 normal contract bidding process." Id. 6 On December 7, 2006, Defendants approved a contract with Navigant Consulting for a maximum

7 cost of $378,339.00, which expires on December 31, 2009. The contract with Navigant Consulting 8 further provides that the term of the agreement may be amended, if determined to be in the best interest 9 of the State, and upon amendment Navigant would continue to provide services for the extended period 10 at the same rates as agreed to in the original contract. 11 On June 18, 2009, this Court ordered that "[w]ithin ten days from the date of the [June 16, 2009]

12 hearing, [D]efendants shall show cause in writing, if any, why they should not be ordered to renew their 13 contract with Navigant Consulting for another three years." Order at ¶ 7 (Docket No. 3613). On June 14 30, 2009, Defendants submitted their response to the Court's June 18, 2009 Order. Defendants' 15 Response to Court's June 18, 2009 Order to Show Cause RE: Navigant Contract (Docket No. 3623) 16 ("Defendants' Response"). On July 2, 2009, Plaintiffs submitted their objection to Defendants' 17 Response. 18 As Defendants' Response notes, John Misener of McManis Consulting has acted as the lead

19 author and forecaster of the semi-annual reports produced by Navigant Consulting "has the competence 20 and experience in developing and updating projected bed needs for their mental health population." 21 Defendants' Response at 2. Further, "this Court, the Special Master, and the Plaintiffs are comfortable 22 and confident that Mr. Misener's projections are reliable." Id. The only justification offered by 23 Defendants not to renew the Navigant Consulting contract relates to Defendants' obligations under State 24 law to follow "the normal contract bidding process." Id. 25 The Navigant Consulting forecast has become an invaluable tool in this case for projecting mental

26 health care needs and is the basis for Defendants' current short-term, intermediate, and long-range bed 27 planning. Defendants have raised no objection to the continued use of Navigant Consulting or the 28 service of John Misener based on accuracy, reliability, or cost. If the Navigant Contract is permitted to

1
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
[303883-1]

ORDER REGARDING NAVIGANT CONSULTING CONTRACT - CASE NO. CIV S 90-0520 LKK-JFM

1 lapse as a result of Defendants' obligation to follow the normal State law contracting process, the parties 2 ability to anticipate and plan for future mental health bed needs will be hindered, particularly if the 3 normal State contracting process results in a lapse in mental health bed need projections after December 4 31, 2009. Accordingly, it is imperative that the contract with Navigant Consulting and/or John Misener 5 of McManis Consulting be promptly renewed for an additional three year term prior to the expiration of 6 the current contract on December 31, 2009. 7 Accordingly, and good cause appearing, and in light of all of the above, and the entire record

8 herein, it is HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 9

1.

Defendants shall renew the Mental Health Bed Projection Services contract ("contract")

10 with Navigant Consulting and/or execute a contract with John Misener of McManis Consulting prior to 11 the expiration of the existing contract on December 31, 2009. Said contract shall be renewed or 12 executed for a period of three additional years. 13

2.

Defendants shall report to the Court within thirty (30) days on any remaining actions that

14 must be taken to renew or execute the contract and any barriers to completing all necessary actions 15 remaining to renew or execute the contract by December 31, 2009. 16

3.

In the event that Defendants determine, at any time, that an applicable state law or

17 regulation must be waived in order to renew or execute the contract by December 31, 2009, Defendants 18 shall immediately file a motion with this Court identifying any applicable law or regulation that must be 19 waived, and requesting the Court enter an order waiving such provision. 20 21 Dated: July 8, 2009. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
[303883-1]

ORDER REGARDING NAVIGANT CONSULTING CONTRACT - CASE NO. CIV S 90-0520 LKK-JFM