Boe Agenda 2012 09 11

POST *** NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING *** BOARD OF EXAMINERS
LOCATION: Capitol Building The Guinn Room 101 N. Carson Street Carson City, Nevada
VIDEOCONFERENCE: Grant Sawyer State Office Building 555 E. Washington Avenue, Ste. 5100 Las Vegas, Nevada DATE AND TIME: September 11, 2012 at 3:00 p.m.
Below is an agenda of all items to be considered. Action will be taken on items preceded by an asterisk (*). Items on the agenda may be taken out of the order presented, items may be combined for consideration by the public body; and items may be pulled or removed from the agenda at any time at the discretion of the Chairperson.
AGENDA
1. *2. *3. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR POSSIBLE ACTION APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 14, 2012 BOARD OF EXAMINERS MEETING MINUTES FOR POSSIBLE ACTION STATE ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL
A. The State Administrative Manual (SAM) is being submitted to the Board of Examiners for approval of additions in the following Chapter: 2000 Nevada State Library and Archives.
Board of Examiners Meeting September 11, 2012 Agenda Page 1
*4.
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION APPROVAL TO PAY A CASH SETTLEMENT

Pursuant to NRS 41.037, the State Board of Examiners may approve, settle or deny any claim or action against the State, any of its agencies or any of its present or former officers, employees, immune contractors or State Legislators. A. STATE OF NEVADA $7,250,000
The State of Nevada and Washoe County desire to settle a dispute that exists between them regarding the refund of certain taxes in the amount of $1.25 million in immediate payment and $6 million in the form of funding for major road maintenance projects in Washoe County. B. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION $274,443
The Department requests settlement approval in the amount of $274,443 pertaining to a Settlement Agreement between the City of Reno, the Reno Redevelopment Agency, Washoe County, the Washoe County School District and the State of Nevada regarding the outstanding property tax increment dispute.
*5.
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION REVIEW OF A CONTRACT WITH A FORMER EMPLOYEE

A. OFFICE OF THE STATE CONTROLLER
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 240, Section 1, Subsection 3 of the 2011 Legislature, the Office of the Controller hereby seeks a favorable Board of Examiners recommendation regarding the Controllers determination to use the emergency provision to use a temporary services contract from August 20, 2012 to December 14, 2012 to employ a former ARRA Report & Account Officer, for four days per week during the contract period, for the purpose of providing assistance to existing staff in completing the States Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The CAFR is an essential component of the states financial reporting and failure to complete the report in an accurate and timely manner could result in a negative impact to the States bond rating. In the past two years, there has been a twenty-three percent turnover in experienced CAFR staff. In addition, another key CAFR employee may require catastrophic leave during the CAFR preparation period. This former employee previously worked for the state for 28 years, most recently in the Controllers Office, and at the highest level of financial responsibility.
NRS 284.1729 3. If a department, division or agency contracts with a person pursuant to this subsection, the department, division or agency shall submit a copy of the contract and a description of the emergency to the State Board of Examiners, which shall review the contract and the description of the emergency and notify the department, division or agency whether the State Board of Examiners would have approved the contract if it had not been entered into pursuant to this subsection.
*6.
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION STATE VEHICLE PURCHASE

Pursuant to NRS 334.010, no automobile may be purchased by any department, office, bureau, officer or employee of the State without prior written consent of the State Board of Examiners. AGENCY NAME Department of Administration Division of Enterprise IT Services Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Division of Forestry Total: # OF VEHICLES 2 2 NOT TO EXCEED: $33,203 $519,096 $552,299
*7.
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION TORT CLAIM

A. Debra Lopez and Daniel Marks, Esq. TC 16293 Amount of Claim - $105,000.00
*8.
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION VICTIMS OF CRIME FY 2012 REPORT

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION VICTIMS OF CRIME NRS 217.260 requires the Board of Examiners to estimate available revenue and anticipated claim costs each quarter. If revenues are insufficient to pay anticipated claims, the statute directs a proportional decrease in claim payments. The fiscal year 2012 Victims of Crime Program report states all approved claims were resolved totaling $24,255,504.52, with $6,109,634.27 paid out of the Victims of Crime Program account and $18,145,870.25 resolved through vendor fee adjustments and cost containment policies. The program anticipates future reserves at $4.6 million to help defray crime victims medical costs.
*9.
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION LEASES

BOE # LESSEE Department of Administration Hearings and Appeals Division
Lease Description:
Term of Lease:
LESSOR Sierra Medical Complex Limited Partnership
AMOUNT $74,214
1.
This is an extension of an existing lease which has been negotiated at current rental cost, with no increase to house the Appeals Division.
05/01/2016 07/31/2017
Board of Psychological Examiners 2.

Lease Description:
Kietzke Office Complex, LLC.
$26,675
This is an extension of an existing lease which has been negotiated at current rental cost, with no increase to house the Board of Psychological Examiners.
Term of Lease: 09/01/2012 06/30/2016
BOE #
LESSEE Department of Health and Human Services Division of Child and Family Services
Lease Description:
Term of Lease:
LESSOR Nye County
AMOUNT
$26,640
3.
This is an extension of an existing lease which has been negotiated at current rental cost, with no increase to house the Division of Child and Family Services.
09/01/2012 08/31/2016
4.
Department of Health and Human Services Mental Health Developmental Services Rural Clinics and Regional
Lease Description:
Bay-O-Vista Realty Company, DBA Federighi & Company
$2,314,278
This is an extension of an existing lease which has been negotiated at current rental cost, with no increase to house Mental Health Developmental Services Rural Clinics and Regional. The total savings for the term of the lease is $130,350.
Term of Lease: 10/01/2012 09/30/2019
Department of Public Safety 5.

Lease Description:
Term of Lease:
James Terry Gust

10/01/2012 06/30/2013
$9,325
This is an extension of an existing lease which has been negotiated at current rental cost, with no increase to house the Department of Public Safety.
*10. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION CONTRACTS

BOE # DEPT # 040 1.
Contract Description:
STATE AGENCY
SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE
CONTRACTOR
HIGH DESERT MICROIMAGING, INC.
FUNDING SOURCE
GENERAL
AMOUNT
($13,920)
EXCEPTIONS FOR SOLICITATIONS AND/OR EMPLOYEES
SOLE SOURCE
This is the second amendment to the original contract, which decreases the contract by $13,918.75 to a maximum amount of $104,689.25; eliminates the lease of scanners; and decreases the number of scanners covered for maintenance due to the need for hardware adjustment to match authorized software licenses, based on a review of scanning hardware and software licensing.
Term of Contract: 07/01/2010 - 06/30/2013 Contract # 11079
082 2.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
COONS CONSTRUCTION
OTHER: BUILDING RENT INCOME FEES
$170,000
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
This is a new contract to provide ongoing snow removal services for multiple State buildings and heavy equipment operations as needed in Carson City, Nevada.
Term of Contract: Upon Approval - 06/30/2016 Contract # 13748
082 3.
MCNEILS CLEANING SERVICE, INC.
FEE: BUILDING RENT INCOME FEES
$60,795
This is a new contract to provide ongoing janitorial services for Stewart Building #6 located at 5500 Snyder Way, Carson City, Nevada.
BOE #
DEPT # 082
STATE AGENCY
CONTRACTOR
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, DBA NEVADA ELEVATOR
FUNDING SOURCE
FEE: BUILDINGS & GROUNDS BUILDING RENT INCOME FEES
AMOUNT
$920,865
4.
This is a new contract to provide ongoing inspection, repair, and maintenance of hydraulic and gear/gearless traction elevators in various state buildings located statewide.
082 5.
RENO TAHOE FRANCHISING, INC.
FEE: BUILDINGS & GROUNDS, BUILDING RENT INCOME FEE
$412,340
This is a new contract to provide ongoing janitorial services to the Department of Motor Vehicles located at 555 Wright Way, Carson City, Nevada.
082 6.

Term of Contract:
U.S. LEASECOMM, LLC.
OTHER: BUILDING RENT INCOME FEES
$209,905
EXEMPT
This is a new contract to provide ongoing landscaping services for multiple State buildings in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Upon Approval - 06/30/2016 Contract # 13745
082 7.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION UNIV 05 CIP PROJ CCSN NON EXEC
RESEARCH FACILITIES DESIGN
BONDS: PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF BONDS
$36,500
This is a new contract to provide professional architectural/engineering services for the Science Engineering & Technology Building Perchloric Hood Relocations; University of Las Vegas Main Campus; Project No. 07-C09 (M); Contract No. 40043.
082 8.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION GENERAL 05 CIP ADA NONEXEC
SIXFIFTY CORP, DBA. LICATA
BONDS: SALE OF BONDS 80% OTHER: TRANSFER FROM OTHER BUDGET ACCOUNT 20%
$1,000
This is the second amendment to the original contract, which provides professional architectural/engineering services associated with the Americans with Disabilities Act upgrades required for the following state facilities located in Carson City, Nevada: the State Fire Marshall's Office, the Department of Education building, the State Mail Services facility, and the Nevada State Supreme Court building: SPWB CIP Project No. 09-S02(3); Contract No. 5118. This amendment increases the maximum amount from $25,900 to $26,900 for the purpose of revising plans and specifications to include four alternate facilities projects.
BOE #
DEPT #
STATE AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION CNR & AGRICULTURE MAINT PROJECTS NON EXEC
CONTRACTOR
PURCELL KROB ELECTRICAL PROF PK ELECTRICAL, INC.
FUNDING SOURCE
BONDS: SALE OF BONDS
AMOUNT
$11,800
082 9.
This is the first amendment to the original contract, which provides professional architectural/engineering services for the Reno Wildlife Headquarters - Install Electrical and Sprinkler Systems; Project No. 11-M01; Contract No. 18846. This amendment increases the maximum amount from $89,200 to $101,000 for additional mechanical, structural and additional architectural services associated with the modification of non-code compliant return air plenums discovered above the corridor ceilings in the older portions of the building.
083 10.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION PURCHASING COMMODITY FOOD PROGRAM
CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES OF NORTHERN NEVADA
FEDERAL
$180,000
This is a new contract to receive, store, and distribute U.S. Department of Agriculture foods to low income individuals according to state and federal guidelines.
083 11.
ELKO FRIENDS IN SERVICE
FEDERAL
$15,000
083 12.
FOOD BANK OF NORTHERN NEVADA
FEDERAL
$22,500
083 13.
LAS VEGAS RESCUE MISSION
FEDERAL
$450,000
BOE #
DEPT # 083
STATE AGENCY
CONTRACTOR
NEVADA RURAL COUNTIES RSVP PROGRAM, INC.
FUNDING SOURCE
FEDERAL
AMOUNT
$60,000
14.
101 15.
COMMISSION ON TOURISM TOURISM DEVELOPMENT FUND
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
OTHER: LODGING TAX
$19,970
This is a new memorandum of agreement to establish the terms and conditions under which the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, and the Nevada Commission on Tourism will cooperate to promote tourism from China by physically co-locating at the U.S. Commercial Center in Shanghai, China.
102 16.
GOVERNORS OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BOARD OF REGENTS-TMCC
OTHER: DEPT OF EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING & REHAB (STATE CAREER ENHANCEMENT PRG FUNDS)
$500,000
EXEMPT
This is a new interlocal agreement between public agencies to provide training for employees of Nevada businesses that have been approved by the Governor's Office of Economic Development.
102 17.
GOVERNORS OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
KPS 3, INC.
GENERAL
$99,000
This is a new contract to provide full-service marketing of Nevada and the Governor's Office on Economic Development to local, national, and international decision-makers. Additionally, the agency will handle strategy, branding, advertising, web design/development, collateral, and other marketing duties as assigned.
180 18.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION ENTERPRISE IT SERVICES COMPUTER FACILITY
CPS NEVADA, LLC.
FEE: FACILITY FEES
$10,000
This is the second amendment to the original contract, which provides maintenance service on the Enterprise Information Technology Service's Uninterruptible Power Supply system located at the Computer Facility. This amendment will increase the amount of the contract from $9,990.00 to $19,990.00.
180 19.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION ENTERPRISE IT SERVICES COMPUTER FACILITY
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC BUILDINGS
FEE: FACILITY FEES
$65,000
SOLE SOURCE
This is a new contract to provide ongoing maintenance and repairs to the air conditioners Direct Digital Control System at the Computer Facility.
BOE #
DEPT # 300
STATE AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DISCRETIONARY GRANTS RESTRICTED
CONTRACTOR
EMETRIC, LLC.
FUNDING SOURCE
FEDERAL
AMOUNT
$980,750
20.
This a new contract to provide support to the implementation of our new accountability system called the Nevada School Performance Framework (NSPF) by supporting our current IT applications that collect the data, developing new collection methods for data that is not collected, reporting data from the NSPF to include training, and adding these new data sets to a new Nevada Report Card built by the vendor.
300 21.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION TITLE I
DAVID LEITNER, DBA. PACIFIC RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
FEDERAL
$91,440
This is a new contract to collect the required data for the Federal Comprehensive State Performance Report for applicable Title I and Title III programs as well as evaluate the 21st Century Community Learning Centers programs
332 22.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES NEVADA STATE LIBRARY
LEARNING EXPRESS, LLC.
FEDERAL
$80,880
This is the first amendment to the original contract, which provides access to online K-12 licensed encyclopedia databases. These databases are used remotely statewide by students and libraries in Nevada which support K-12 curriculum. This amendment extends the termination date from September 13, 2012, to June 30, 2014, and increases the maximum amount of the contract from $45,000 to $125,877 due to the continued need for these services.
406 23.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES HEALTH EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES

Term of Contract:
ZIRMED, INC.
GENERAL
$39,070
This is a new contract to provide claims processing services in conjunction with online claims management processing systems.
Upon Approval - 06/30/2015 Contract # 13703
406 24.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES HEALTH WIC FOOD SUPPLEMENT
WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY
FEDERAL
$37,620
EXEMPT
This is a new interlocal agreement to provide Women, Infants, and Children participants internet-based modules related to nutrition education and behavioral counseling.
BOE #
DEPT # 406
STATE AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES HEALTH BIOSTATISTICS AND EPIDEMIOLOGY
CONTRACTOR
GNOMON, INC.
FUNDING SOURCE
FEDERAL
AMOUNT
$24,790
25.
This is a new contract to provide technical assistance for the upgrade of the Nevada Electronic Review Database System (NERDS). NERDS allows users to review and verify electronic (encrypted) laboratory messages for HIV/AIDS cases and import them into the Centers for Disease Control supported surveillance system (eHARS) for HIV.
406 26.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES HEALTH MATERNAL CHILD HEALTH SERVICES
BOARD OF REGENTS UNR
FEDERAL
$257,405
This is a new interlocal agreement to expand evidence-based home visiting services, to promote maternal, infant and early childhood health, and safety, as well as the development of strong parent-child relationships.
406 27.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES HEALTH MATERNAL CHILD HEALTH SERVICES
SUNRISE CHILDRENS FOUNDATION
FEDERAL
$354,060
This is a new interlocal agreement to expand evidence-based home visiting services, to promote maternal, infant and early childhood health, and safety, as well as the development of strong parent-child relationships
407 28.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES WELFARE AND SUPPORT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
FEDERAL
$74,185
This is a new interlocal agreement for the Division of Welfare and Supportive Service (DWSS), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to provide nutrition education to low income families. Through a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, DWSS collaborates with various public and non-profit agencies to provide education to SNAP recipients to improve the likelihood that recipients and those eligible for benefits will make healthy food choices.
BOE #
DEPT #
STATE AGENCY
CONTRACTOR
FUNDING SOURCE
FEDERAL
AMOUNT
$788,115
407 29.
407 30.
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LAS VEGAS
FEDERAL
$141,775
This is a new contract for the Division of Welfare and Supportive Service (DWSS), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to provide outreach and application assistance to low income and senior population of Nevada. Through a reimbursement program from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), DWSS collaborates with various public and non-profit agencies to reach out to eligible low-income people who are not currently participating in SNAP and assist with SNAP application completion.
407 31.
CAPPALAPPA FAMILY RESOURCE
FEDERAL
$35,500
407 32.
DUCKWATER SHOSHONE TRIBE
FEDERAL
$53,705
BOE #
DEPT #
STATE AGENCY
CONTRACTOR
EAST VALLEY FAMILY SERVICES
FUNDING SOURCE
FEDERAL
AMOUNT
$166,565
407 33.
407 34.
FAMILY TO FAMILY CONNECTION
FEDERAL
$26,400
407 35.
FEDERAL
$40,740
This is a new contract for the Division of Welfare and Supportive Service (DWSS), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to provide nutrition education to low income families. Through a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, DWSS collaborates with various public and non-profit agencies to provide education to SNAP recipients to improve the likelihood that recipients and those eligible for benefits will make healthy food choices.
407 36.
FEDERAL
$224,220
This is a new contract for the Division of Welfare and Supportive Service (DWSS), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), for a Community Partner Interviewers Demonstration Project. Through a waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), certain community partners can conduct an initial SNAP interview, which allows DWSS to reach populations that would otherwise be difficult to reach and saves State time and resources.
BOE #
DEPT #
STATE AGENCY
CONTRACTOR
HELP OF SOUTHERN NEVADA
FUNDING SOURCE
FEDERAL
AMOUNT
$56,770
407 37.
407 38.
HELP OF SOUTHERN NEVADA
FEDERAL
$214,845
This is a new contract for the Division of Welfare and Supportive Service (DWSS), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), for a Community Partner Interviewers Demonstration Project. Through a waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), certain community partners can conduct an initial SNAP interview, which allows DWSS to reach populations that would otherwise be difficult to reach and saves State time and resources.
407 39.
HENDERSON ALLIED COMMUNITY ADVOCATES
FEDERAL
$66,600
407 40.
LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF NV.
FEDERAL
$73,960
BOE #
DEPT #
STATE AGENCY
CONTRACTOR
OLIVE CREST
FUNDING SOURCE
FEDERAL
AMOUNT
$102,190
407 41.
407 42.
THE SALVATION ARMY
FEDERAL
$41,030
407 43.
STEP 2, INC.
FEDERAL
$10,460
407 44.
TE MOAK TRIBE OF WESTERN SHOSONE/SPECIAL DIABETES PROGRAM
FEDERAL
$45,290
BOE #
DEPT #
STATE AGENCY
CONTRACTOR
THREE SQUARE
FUNDING SOURCE
FEDERAL
AMOUNT
$318,935
407 45.
407 46.
WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
FEDERAL
$56,455
This is a new interlocal agreement for the Division of Welfare and Supportive Service (DWSS), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to provide outreach and application assistance to low income and senior population of Nevada. Through a reimbursement program from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), DWSS collaborates with various public and non-profit agencies to reach out to eligible low-income people who are not currently participating in SNAP and assist with SNAP application completion.
407 47.
YERINGTON PAIUTE TRIBE COUNCIL
FEDERAL
$63,215
407
48.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES WELFARE AND SUPPORT SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
CLARK COUNTY
OTHER: STATE SHARE OF COLLECTIONS 10% FEDERAL 90%
$304,000
This is a new interlocal agreement for the Division of Welfare and Supportive Service (DWSS), Child Support Enforcement Program (CSEP), to provide mediation services, supervised visitation, and formulation of parenting plans. Through a grant from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, DWSS collaborates with the Second and Eighth Judicial District Courts to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents access to and visitation of their children by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pickup), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.
BOE #
DEPT #
STATE AGENCY
CONTRACTOR
TALX CORPORATION
FUNDING SOURCE
FEDERAL
AMOUNT
$2,710
407
49.
This is the second amendment to the original contract for the Division of Welfare and Supportive Services (DWSS), Child Support Enforcement Program to provide employment location and income verification of non-custodial parents in order to determine the ability to pay medical or child support and to enforce the support payment. This contract also provides income verification for the Eligibility and Payment unit to determine eligibility for the Federal Assistance Programs administered by DWSS, including Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid and Energy Assistance Program (EAP). This amendment revises consideration language by increasing the maximum from $9,756 to $12,466 to allow payment for services provided.
407
50.
WASHOE COUNTY
OTHER: STATE SHARE OF COLLECTIONS 10% FEDERAL 90%
$124,000
This is a new interlocal agreement for the Division of Welfare and Supportive Service (DWSS), Child Support Enforcement Program (CSEP), to provide mediation services, supervised visitation, and formulation of parenting plans. Through a grant from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, DWSS collaborates with the Second and Eighth Judicial District Courts to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents' access to and visitation of their children by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pickup), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.
407 51.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES WELFARE AND SUPPORT SERVICES ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
HOUSING DIVISION
FEDERAL
$1,902,800
This is a new interlocal agreement between the Division of Welfare and Supportive Service (DWSS), Energy Assistance Program (EAP) and the Department of Business and Industry, Housing Division, Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) to provide the Housing Division with 5% of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Block Grant funds awarded to DWSS to help fund weatherization assistance for low income families. WAP encourages and enables households to reduce their home energy needs by providing for various energy conservation measures, which decreases the need for energy assistance.
BOE #
DEPT #
STATE AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES MENTAL HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES NORTHERN NEVADA ADULT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
CONTRACTOR
PRN SYSTEMS CONNECT, LLC.
FUNDING SOURCE
GENERAL
AMOUNT
$59,160
408 52.
This is the third amendment to the original contract which provides after hours remote chart order processing services. This amendment increases the total authority of the contract from $240,000 to $299,160.
408 53.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES - MENTAL HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES - NORTHERN NEVADA ADULT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
NEVADA STATE HEALTH LABORATORY
GENERAL
$2,425
This is the second amendment to the original contract which provides QuantiFeron-TB tests on Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services (NNAMHS) consumers at the request of authorized NNAMHS personnel. This amendment increases the total authority from $9,600 to $12,025 due to increased usage of this service by NNAMHS.
409 54.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES SOUTHERN NEVADA CHILD & ADOLESCENT SERVICES
EXECUTIVE PEST SERVICES, LLC.
GENERAL 43.3% OTHER: PRIVATE INSURANCE 3.2% FEDERAL 53.5%
$17,640
This is the first amendment to the original contract, which provides monthly pest control services for the office located at 6171 W. Charleston Blvd., Las Vegas. This amendment extends the termination date from September 30, 2012 to September 30, 2014 and increases the maximum amount from $17,640 to $35,280 due to the continued need for these services.
431 55.
ADJUTANT GENERAL AND NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY
EM-ASSIST
FEDERAL
$78,355
This is a new contract to develop and configure web-based training courses that address the Nevada Army National Guard Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan as mandated.
431 56.
ADJUTANT GENERAL AND NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY
HERSHENOW & KLIPPENSTEIN
FEDERAL
$60,000
This is a new contract to provide architectural and electrical engineering services, project management and furnishing selection consulting for the North Las Vegas Readiness Center.
BOE #
DEPT # 440
STATE AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS PRISON MEDICAL CARE
CONTRACTOR
AMERICAN BENEFIT PLAN
ADMINISTRATORS,
FUNDING SOURCE
GENERAL
AMOUNT
$790,665
57.
INC.
This is the second amendment to the original contract, which provides third party administration services to manage the payment of medical and dental claims to providers not employed by the Department of Corrections. This amendment increases the contract amount from $815,700 to $1,606,365 due to the contract extension for these services through June 30, 2014.
440 58.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS PRISON MEDICAL CARE
BRYANT'S ELECTRONIC SERVICING & TESTING
GENERAL
$83,250
This is a new contract to provide semi-annual, preventative maintenance service on medical equipment located at the following correctional facilities: Ely State Prison, Jean Conservation Camp, Florence McClure Women's Correctional Center, High Desert State Prison, Lovelock Correctional Center, Warm Springs Correctional Center, Southern Desert Correctional Center, and Northern Nevada Correctional Center. Services are to include: on-site inspections, calibration of equipment, routine maintenance and in-service training to staff as necessary.
440 59.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
SCROLL K/ VAAD HAKASHRUS
GENERAL
$387,310
SOLE SOURCE
This is a new contract to provide koshering of Common Fare kitchens and ongoing rabbinical supervision of kosher food preparation at the following correctional facilities: Northern Nevada Correctional Center, Lovelock Correctional Center, Ely State Prison, Florence McClure Women's Correctional Center, High Desert State Prison, and Southern Desert Correctional Center.
440 60.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS
WESTCARE NEVADA, INC. (WC-NV)
GENERAL 39% FEDERAL 61%
$232,232
This is the second amendment to the original contract which provides pre and post release services to incarcerated inmates for the Second Chance Adult Re-Entry Demonstration Project, which is designed to reduce recidivism by helping offenders find work and access other critical services in their communities upon their release. This amendment extends the termination date from September 30, 2012 to June 30, 2013 and increases the maximum amount of the contract from $360,637.91 to $592,869.91 due to the extension of services to additional inmates/ex-offenders.
440 61.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS PRISON DAIRY
WISAN, SMITH, RACKER & PRESCOTT, LLP.
FEDERAL
$14,480
This is a new contract to provide audits by an independent CPA firm in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards covering financial audits. The BLM program-specific five-year period audit conducted for Silver State Industries in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 7501-7507) and revised OMB Circular A-133.
440 62.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WELLS CONSERVATION CAMP
WESTERN EXTERMINATOR COMPANY
GENERAL
$56,012
This is a new contract to provide regular scheduled pest control services at the following correctional facilities: Carlin Conservation Camp, Humbolt Conservation Camp, Lovelock Correctional Center and Wells Conservation Camp.
BOE #
DEPT # 440
STATE AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LOVELOCK CORRECTIONAL CENTER
CONTRACTOR
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC BUILDINGS AMERICAS, INC.
FUNDING SOURCE
GENERAL
AMOUNT
$156,440
63.
This is a new contract to perform preventative maintenance service on the Network 800 Direct Digital/LON temperature control system at Lovelock Correctional Center.
440 64.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON
W.W.WILLIAMS SOUTHWEST, INC.
GENERAL
$86,035
This is a new contract to provide preventative maintenance services on the generators located at High Desert State Prison, Southern Desert Correctional Center, Southern Nevada Correctional Center, Florence McClure Womens Correctional Center, and Jean Conservation Camp.
550 65.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ADMINISTRATION

Term of Contract:
F.A.A.D. JANITORIAL
OTHER: FUNDS ARE COST ALLOCATED
$24,900
This is a new contract to provide ongoing janitorial services at the department's headquarters and laboratories.
09/11/2012 - 08/31/2013 Contract # 13708
650 66.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FORFEITURES LAW ENFORCEMENT
EVIDENCE CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC.
OTHER: FORFEITURES
$68,900
This is a new contract to provide for a comprehensive property and evidence process review for the Director's Office of the Department of Public Safety.
690
COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION
UTILITY SERVICES, INC.
OTHER: POWER SALES REVENUE
$24,000
67.
This is a new contract to conduct a Western Electric Coordinating Council (WECC) readiness review or 'mock audit' of the Commission's electrical systems documentation prior to an actual WECC audit. As an entity with physical interconnections to the regional high voltage electric grid, the Commission is required to adhere to certain reliability standards. These standards are promulgated and enforced by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and its western regional entity, WECC. Entities that are found to be in violation of these standards are subject to penalties and enforcement action. Entities are subject to periodic audits and the Commission anticipates that it will be audited for the first time in 2013. The review will examine the Commission's compliance documentation for completeness, examine the Internal Compliance Program and make suggestions related to these issues. In addition, the contractor will assist the Commission during the audit as needed.
BOE #
DEPT # 702
STATE AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE HERITAGE Non-Exec
CONTRACTOR
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
FUNDING SOURCE
OTHER: UPLAND GAME STAMPS 25% FEDERAL 75%
AMOUNT
$50,000
68.
This is the third amendment to the original interlocal agreement for investigation related to sage-grouse habitat preferences within the Virginia Mountains in Washoe County. Habitat within this area has been subjected to wildfire; transmission line development; some suburban development and subsidized predation; and it is important to understand the long-term impacts of these perturbations. Tasks that will be performed include capturing, outfitting with telemetry collars, tracking, physical measurements, identifying predators, etc. The department is working to prevent sage-grouse from becoming listed as an endangered species, which would result in additional federal regulations and negative impacts on development. This work can result in better sagegrouse management practices. This amendment increases the maximum amount from $117,600 to $167,600 to fund additional work of the same nature as under the original contract.
Term of Contract: 12/09/2008 - 12/31/2012 Contract # CONV6688
740
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY ADMINISTRATION
R CHRISTOPHER READE CHTD.
OTHER: MORGAN STANLEY SETTLEMENT FUNDS
$133,305
69.
This is a new contract to provide Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Hearing Officer, or Impartial Referee services in formal and informal evidentiary hearings. The hearings involve contested cases under Nevada Administrative Procedure Act Chapter 233B of Nevada Revised Statues, and other hearing and/or Alternative Dispute Resolution statues that are applicable to the department and its divisions. The ALJ will 1) preside over hearings and appeals 2) ensure the development of a complete and accurate record of the proceedings and 3) render proposed decisions, rulings, or orders based on the proceedings. The ALJ will provide a resource for timely, impartial, and objective adjudication of administrative actions for certain divisions within the Nevada Department of Business and Industry.
740
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY ADMINISTRATION
SAMUEL THOMPSON
OTHER: MORGAN STANLEY SETTLEMENT FUNDS
$133,301
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, FORMER EMPLOYEE
70.
This is a new contract to provide Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Hearing Officer, or Impartial Referee services in formal and informal evidentiary hearings. The hearings involve contested cases under Nevada Administrative Procedure Act Chapter 233B of Nevada Revised Statues, and other hearing and/or Alternative Dispute Resolution statues that are applicable to the department and its divisions. The ALJ will 1) preside over hearings and appeals 2) ensure the development of a complete and accurate record of the proceedings and 3) render proposed decisions, rulings, or orders based on the proceedings. The ALJ will provide a resource for timely, impartial, and objective adjudication of administrative actions for certain divisions within the Nevada Department of Business and Industry.
741 71.
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY INSURANCE INSURANCE INSOLVENCY FUND Non-Exec
NEVADA INSURANCE GUARANTY
OTHER: INSOLVENCY ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED FROM SELF-INSURED EMPLOYERS AND ASSOCIATIONS
$550,000
SOLE SOURCE
This is a new contract which provides administration of claims when a self-insured employer or association of self-insured employers becomes insolvent. In addition, it consolidates administrative activity and avoids duplication of expenses incurred by eliminating the use of multiple Third Party Administrators.
BOE #
DEPT # 800
STATE AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CONTRACTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
FUNDING SOURCE
HIGHWAY 5% FEDERAL 95%
AMOUNT
$800,000
72.
This is a new interlocal agreement to provide ongoing support data and other information which will continue the statewide paid media enhancement for distracted driving, impaired driving, and pedestrian safety; and expand the high visibility enforcement of Strategic Highway Safety Plan critical emphasis areas.
810 73.
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES MOTOR VEHICLE POLLUTION CONTROL
CLEAR CHANNEL BROADCASTING
FEE: EMISSIONS 68% OTHER: FEE FUNDED 32%
$19,045
This is a new contract for the purpose of delivering information to our DMV customers on two important subjects: 1) Assist the public in the titling and registering of Off-Highway Vehicles; and 2) How to report smoking vehicles that are polluting the environment.
810 74.
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES CENTRAL SERVICES
CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR
FEE: EMISSIONS 59% OTHER: FEE FUNDED 41%
$22,995
This is a new contract for the purpose of delivering information to our DMV customers on two important subjects: 1) Assist the public in the titling and registering of Off-Highway Vehicles; and 2) How to report smoking vehicles that are polluting the environment.
810 75.
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES CENTRAL SERVICES
INTELLECTUAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
HIGHWAY
$1,849,555
This is the second amendment to the original contract, which provides for the production, printing and issuance of registration decals, vehicle registration renewal certificates, and Motor Carrier International Registration Plan and vehicle identification cab cards. This amendment extends the termination date from September 30, 2014 to September 30, 2017 and increases the maximum amount from $2,741,744 to 4,591,299 to allow for the installation and implementation of a Print on Demand System that will enable the DMV offices statewide to print decals and forms at the time of sale.
Term of Contract: 09/08/2008 - 09/30/2017 Contract # CONV5970
901 76.
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING & REHABILITATION REHABILITATION BLIND BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM
BULLS EYE TECHNICAL SERVICE
OTHER: BUSINESS ENTERPRISES SETASIDE
$15,000
This is the second amendment to the original contract, which provides ongoing repair and maintenance of commercial kitchen appliances such as hot dog rollers, deep fryers, blenders, coffee makers, dishwashers, commercial toasters, can openers, ovens, fryers, steam wells, and convection ovens at any southern Nevada Business Enterprises of Nevada location. This amendment increases the maximum amount from $27,500 to $42,500 due to an increased need for these services.
BOE #
DEPT #
STATE AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING & REHABILITATION REHABILITATION VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION
CONTRACTOR
CAPGEMINI GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS
FUNDING SOURCE
GENERAL 21.3% FEDERAL 78.7%
AMOUNT
$1,331,550
SOLE SOURCE
901 77.
This is a new contract to provide for the development and installation of computer hardware and software needed to achieve a totally paperless case management system for the Rehabilitation Division's case files; determine and complete system connectivity between the document imaging application and the current Rehabilitation Administration Information System of Nevada; and identify and implement the document workflow stream of processing Rehabilitation vendor invoices.
901 78.
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING & REHABILITATION REHABILITATION VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIV. FOUNDATION
GENERAL 21.3% FEDERAL 78.7%
$35,225
EXEMPT
This is a new interlocal agreement to perform a comprehensive statewide needs assessment to determine the needs of individuals with disabilities who seek employment and identify the barriers that keep them from successfully achieving employment. The needs assessment team will conduct focus groups, interviews and meetings with consumers, community partners, Workforce Investment Act partners, community rehabilitation training centers and others to determine needs of consumers and strengths and opportunities for improvement within the Rehabilitation Division, Program Services Bureaus.
920 79.
DEFERRED COMPENSATION COMMITTEE
SEGAL ROGERSCASEY
OTHER: VENDOR REIMBURSEMENTS
$24,999
This is a new contract to provide investment performance review reports, news on investment activities between quarters including capital market research, educate board members on the economic and capital market environment, conduct investment option searches and to negotiate a contract with the selected record keeper.
Term of Contract: 9/11/2012 12/31/2012 Contract # 13784
BDC 80.
LICENSING BOARDS & COMMISSIONS DENTAL EXAMINERS
HILLERBY & ASSOCIATES
FEE: LICENSING FEES
$75,000
This is a new contract to provide legislative review and monitoring to the Board and assist with legislative testimony and communications.
BDC 81.

Term of Contract:
HUMMEL & ASSOCIATES
FEE: LICENSING FEES
$72,000
This is a new contract to provide the Nevada State Board of Dental Examiners general accounting services.
09/01/2012 - 06/30/2016 Contract # 13778
BDC 82.
JOHN A. HUNT, ESQ.
FEE: LICENSING FEES
$200,000
This is the first amendment to the original contract which provides general counsel and represents the Board in disciplinary matters. This amendment increases the maximum amount of the contract from $500,000 with a per year limit of $150,000 to $700,000 with no annual limit.
*11. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENTS

BOE # DEPT # MSA MSA 1.
STATE AGENCY
VARIOUS STATE AGENCIES
CONTRACTOR
I3TECH DATA SOLUTIONS, INC.
FUNDING SOURCE
OTHER: VARIOUS
AMOUNT
$5,000,000
This is the first amendment to the original contract, which provides assistance on a variety of information technology (IT) consulting and technical specialist levels on an hourly basis to state agencies. This amendment increases the maximum amount from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 due to increased usage for IT services.
MSA MSA 2.
MILLENNIUM INTEGRATED SRVCS 2000, INC.
OTHER: VARIOUS
$2,500,000
This is the first amendment to the original contract, which provides assistance on a variety of information technology (IT) consulting and technical specialist levels on an hourly basis to state agencies. This amendment increases the maximum amount from $5,000,000 to $7,500,000 due to increased usage for IT services.
MSA MSA 3.
SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC.
OTHER: VARIOUS
$1,500,000
This is a new contract which provides wireless devices, maintenance and service, and wireless voice communication and data transmission options such as video, messaging, internet or other services.
12. BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENTS *13. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION ADJOURNMENT
Notice of this meeting was posted in the following locations: Blasdel Building, 209 E. Musser St., Carson City, NV Capitol Building, 101 N. Carson St., Carson City, NV Legislative Building, 401 N. Carson St., Carson City, NV Nevada State Library and Archives, 100 Stewart Street, Carson City, NV Notice of this meeting was emailed for posting to the following location: Capitol Police, Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 E. Washington Ave, Las Vegas, NV Brad Carson [email protected] Notice of this meeting was posted on the following website: http://budget.nv.gov/Meetings We are pleased to make reasonable accommodations for members of the public who are disabled and would like to attend the meeting. If special arrangements for the meeting are required, please notify the Department of Administration at least one working day before the meeting at (775) 684-0222 or you can fax your request to (775) 684-0260.
DETAILED AGENDA
September 11, 2012
1.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Comments:
*2.
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 14, 2012 BOARD OF EXAMINERS MEETING MINUTES
Clerks Recommendation: I recommend approval. Motion By: Comments: Seconded By: Vote:
*3.
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION STATE ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL

The State Administrative Manual (SAM) is being submitted to the Board of Examiners for approval of additions in the following Chapter: 2000 Nevada State Library and Archives Clerks Recommendation: I recommend approval. Motion By: Comments: Seconded By: Vote:
*4.

Pursuant to NRS 41.037, the State Board of Examiners may approve, settle or deny any claim or action against the State, any of its agencies or any of its present or former officers, employees, immune contractors or State Legislators. A. STATE OF NEVADA $7,250,000
The State of Nevada and Washoe County desire to settle a dispute that exists between them regarding the refund of certain taxes in the amount of $1.25 million in immediate payment and $6 million in the form of funding for major road maintenance projects in Washoe County. Clerks Recommendation: I recommend approval. Motion By: Comments: Seconded By: Vote:
Board of Examiners Meeting September 11, 2012 Detailed Agenda Page 1
B.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION $274,443
The Department requests settlement approval in the amount of $274,443 pertaining to a Settlement Agreement between the City of Reno, the Reno Redevelopment Agency, Washoe County, the Washoe County School District and the State of Nevada regarding the outstanding property tax increment dispute. Clerks Recommendation: I recommend approval. Motion By: Comments: *5. Seconded By: Vote:
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION REVIEW OF A CONTRACT WITH A FORMER EMPLOYEE

A. OFFICE OF THE STATE CONTROLLER
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 240, Section 1, Subsection 3 of the 2011 Legislature, the Office of the Controller hereby seeks a favorable Board of Examiners recommendation regarding the Controllers determination to use the emergency provision to use a temporary services contract from August 20, 2012 to December 14, 2012 to employ a former ARRA Report & Account Officer, for four days per week during the contract period, for the purpose of providing assistance to existing staff in completing the States Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The CAFR is an essential component of the states financial reporting and failure to complete the report in an accurate and timely manner could result in a negative impact to the States bond rating. In the past two years, there has been a twenty-three percent turnover in experienced CAFR staff. In addition, another key CAFR employee may require catastrophic leave during the CAFR preparation period. This former employee previously worked for the state for 28 years, most recently in the Controllers Office, and at the highest level of financial responsibility.
NRS 284.1729 3. If a department, division or agency contracts with a person pursuant to this subsection, the department, division or agency shall submit a copy of the contract and a description of the emergency to the State Board of Examiners, which shall review the contract and the description of the emergency and notify the department, division or agency whether the State Board of Examiners would have approved the contract if it had not been entered into pursuant to this subsection.
Clerks Recommendation: I recommend approval. Motion By: Comments: Seconded By: Vote:
*6.
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION STATE VEHICLE PURCHASE

Pursuant to NRS 334.010, no automobile may be purchased by any department, office, bureau, officer or employee of the State without prior written consent of the State Board of Examiners. AGENCY NAME Department of Administration Division of Enterprise IT Services Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Division of Forestry # OF VEHICLES 2 2 NOT TO EXCEED: $33,203 $519,096 $552,299
Total:
Clerks Recommendation: I recommend approval. Motion By: Comments: Seconded By:
Vote:
*7.
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION TORT CLAIM

A. Debra Lopez and Daniel Marks, Esq. TC 16293 Amount of Claim - $105,000.00
Recommendation: The report recommended that the claim be paid in the amount of $105,000.00. Motion By: Comments: Seconded By: Vote:
*8.
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION VICTIMS OF CRIME FY 2012 REPORT

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION VICTIMS OF CRIME NRS 217.260 requires the Board of Examiners to estimate available revenue and anticipated claim costs each quarter. If revenues are insufficient to pay anticipated claims, the statute directs a proportional decrease in claim payments. The fiscal year 2012 Victims of Crime Program report states all approved claims were resolved totaling $24,255,504.52, with $6,109,634.27 paid out of the Victims of Crime Program account and $18,145,870.25 resolved through vendor fee adjustments and cost containment policies. The program anticipates future reserves at $4.6 million to help defray crime victims medical costs. Clerks Recommendation: I recommend approval. Motion By: Comments: Seconded By: Vote:
*9.

Five statewide leases were submitted to the Board for review and approval. Clerks Recommendation: I recommend approval. Motion By: Comments: Seconded By: Vote:
*10.
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION CONTRACTS

Eighty-Two independent contracts were submitted to the Board for review and approval. Clerks Recommendation: I recommend approval. Motion By: Comments: Seconded By: Vote:
*11.
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENTS

Three master service agreements were submitted to the Board for review and approval. Clerks Recommendation: I recommend approval. Motion By: Comments: Seconded By: Vote:
*12. *13.
BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR POSSIBLE ACTION ADJOURNMENT

Motion By: Comments: Seconded By: Vote:
MINUTES MEETING OF THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS

August 14, 2012 The Board of Examiners met on Tuesday, August 14, 2012, in the Guinn Room on the second floor of the Capitol Building, 101 N. Carson St., Carson City, Nevada, at 10:00 a.m. Present were: Members: Governor Brian Sandoval Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto Secretary of State Ross Miller Clerk Stephanie Day Others Present: Karissa Vero, Attorney Generals Office Rudy Malfabon, Department of Transportation Las Vegas Maureen Cole, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation Kimberlee Tarter, Purchasing Rebecca Salazar, Department of Administration Nancy Bowman, Attorney Generals Office Mark Mathers, Office of the State Treasurer Steve Hill, Governors Office of Economic Development Kat Miller, Nevada Office of Veterans Services Lynn OMara, Department of Health and Human Services Bill Chisel, Department of Taxation Dr. Tracey Green, Department of Health and Human Services Mike Torvinen, Department of Health and Human Services Lynda Parven, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation Grant Nielson, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation Dennis Correa, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation Dave Haws, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation Jon Hager, Silver State Health Insurance Exchange
Board of Examiners Meeting August 14, 2012 Minutes Page 1
1.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Comments: Governor: Good morning, everyone. Id like to call the Board of Examiners meeting to order. All members are present. Madam Attorney General, can you hear me loud and clear in Las Vegas? Attorney General: We are here. Yes, we can hear you. Governor: All right. Attorney General: Governor, can you hear us okay? Governor: Yes. We can hear you loud and clear. Ill begin with Agenda Item No. 1, Public Comment. Are there any members of the public in Las Vegas that would like to provide public comment to the Board of Examiners? I will say that public comment will be limited to three minutes. Attorney General: Public comment down here anybody? No one down here, Governor. Governor: Okay. Is there any member of the public that would like to provide public comment here in Carson City? Yes, sir. Ty Robben: Where do I stand, or just Governor: No. You can sit right there, sir, and if you identify yourself for the record. Ty Robben: Sure, right here? Governor: Yes. Ty Robben: Right here? Governor: Right there in the middle. And again, to remind you, it will be three minutes. Ty Robben: Oh, sure. No problem. My name is Ty Robben, and I was involved in this hit and run accident by Susan Martinovich last week, and I wanted to give you a copy of the brief I filed. Governor: You can just leave it there on the table, sir. Ty Robben: Yes. One for Ms. Masto as well. And as you know, weve been protesting outside your offices, and weve asked you to come out and talk to us, so you havent done that, so weve come in here to talk to you, you know, and encourage you to talk to us so we dont have to be out there with big signs and a P.A. system and so forth and get some of these issues resolved, Governor, because they are serious and, you know, this is a big cover up, and I encourage you to
read that because it was all over the news last night, and we just really want to get these issues resolved, sir. Okay? Governor: Understood. Thank you very much, Mr. Robben. Ty Robben: Thank you.
*2.
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION APPROVAL OF THE JULY 13, 2012 BOARD OF EXAMINERS MEETING MINUTES
Clerks Recommendation: I recommend approval. Motion By: Secretary of State Comments: Seconded By: Attorney General Vote: 3-0
Governor: We will move on to Agenda Item No. 2, approval of the July 13, 2012 Board of Examiners meeting minutes. Have the members had an opportunity to review the minutes from July 13, 2012? Secretary of State: Yes, Governor. Attorney General: Yes. Governor: Any deletions or changes? Hearing none, the Chair will accept a motion for approval. Secretary of State: So moved. Governor: Okay. Theres a motion by the Secretary of State to approve the minutes as provided in the binders for July 13, 2012. Is there a second? Attorney General: Second. Governor: Second by the Attorney General. Any questions or discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Motion passes unanimously.
*3.
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION AUTHORITY TO PAY MINING CLAIM REFUNDS

A. Department of Taxation $143,955
Pursuant to Senate Bill 493, Section 16.7 of the 2011 Legislature, the Department of Taxation must submit mining claim refund requests to the Board of Examiners for approval. The
Department is requesting authority to pay 41 refund requests totaling $143,955. This results in a remaining balance of $1,068,278 Clerks Recommendation: I recommend approval. Motion By: Secretary of State Comments: Seconded By: Attorney General Vote: 3-0
Governor: Agenda Item No. 3, authority to pay mining claim refunds. Clerk: Good morning. Thank you, Governor. Pursuant to Senate Bill 493 of the 2011 legislature, the Department of Taxation must submit mining claim refunds requests to the Board of Examiners for approval. The department is requesting authority to pay 41 refund questions totaling $143,955, which results in a remaining balance of $1,068,278. Governor: Do the members have any questions with regard to Agenda Item No. 3? Hearing none, the Chair will accept a motion to approve the payment of $143,955 to pay mining claim refunds. Secretary of State: So moved. Attorney General: Second the motion. Governor: Theres a motion by the Secretary of State to approve the payment of the mining claim refund in the sum of $143,955. The Attorney General has seconded the motion. Any questions or discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Motion passes unanimously.
*4.

Pursuant to NRS 41.037, the State Board of Examiners may approve, settle or deny any claim or action against the State, any of its agencies or any of its present or former officers, employees, immune contractors or State Legislators. A. Department of Transportation Administration $650,000
The department requests settlement approval in the amount of $650,000 to resolve an inverse condemnation claim pertaining to property owned by P8 Arden, LLC. P8 Arden, LLC filed suit against NDOT for the alleged taking of its access at Arden Road and Blue Diamond when NDOT reconstructed and widened Blue Diamond Road from Decatur Boulevard to Rainbow Boulevard as part of Phase IIB of the project. As a result of the lawsuit, the judge issued an order that P8 Arden, LLC was entitled to compensation for the taking of its access rights on Arden. Clerks Recommendation: I recommend approval. Motion By: Secretary of State Comments: Seconded By: Attorney General Vote: 3-0
Governor: Agenda item No. 4, approval to pay a catch settlement. Ms. Day. Clerk: Thank you, Governor. The Department of Transportation requests settlement approval in the amount of $650,000 to resolve an inverse condemnation claim pertaining to property owned by P8 Arden LLC for access at Arden Road and Blue Diamond when NDOT reconstructed and widened Blue Diamond Road from Decatur Boulevard to Rainbow Boulevard. Governor: Thank you. Is there a representative of the Nevada Department of Transportation or the Attorney Generals office on this matter? Karissa Vero: Im Karissa Vero and Im from the AGs office representing the Department of Transportation on this. Governor: And I dont know if you can see Mr. Malfabon from your angle. Hes here as well. Mr. Malfabon, I -- we have a one-page briefing on this. If you could provide some more background with regard to this matter. Rudy Malfabon: Yes. The property is next to the railroad, and on this widening project on Blue Diamond Road, NDOT built a bridge over the railroad track. So the property in question didnt have direct access to Blue Diamond Road anymore. They filed an inverse condemnation claim and Karissa Vero from the Attorney Generals office negotiated a settlement which I agreed to. We also discussed with the county about providing alternate access. The county will pave the local road, and also NDOT has some additional funds coming from Clark County which total over $2 million. It will offset some of the cost for the settlement here. The additional funds from the county were for extra work involved in the draining work that that NDOT did on their behalf, and also developer fees that they collected on behalf of NDOT for signals that we put in on that widening project. Governor: Do you have any idea how much that offsets going to be on -- with regard to this settlement? Rudy Malfabon: The settlement, since it was NDOTs project, its really not a direct offset. Its just that the county is going to give us some funds that will offset the cost, but its not in direct relation to that. So the county is going to do the work on their behalf or the paving of the local street. So I think that thats estimated to cost less than $200,000. Governor: And perhaps this question is for counsel. In the memo that we received, it says that the judge issued on order that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the taking of its access rights, and then this case settled. So I was curious what the nature of that order was. Karissa Vero: Im sorry, the nature of the what? Attorney General: Judges order. Governor: The judges order.
Karissa Vero: The judges order. We basically filed the motion to determine liability, both parties did, and the judge did find that there was a taking of access, and the access to the property had been substantially impaired. So if this matter proceeded to trial, then it would be up to a jury to determine the just compensation. And thats why we thought it was in the best interest to enter into a settlement agreement. We actually just tried a neighboring case just a couple blocks down from this case, and it was a bench trial, and the amount of that award was greater than our settlement in this case and we had a favorable outcome in that case. Governor: I think I recall the case youre talking about. It was a very favorable outcome compared to the demand. Were there dueling appraisals in this case? What was the states appraisal, and what was the property owners appraisal? Karissa Vero: Sure. A total take of the property it came in at 925,000. Thats was NDOTs appraisal. The plaintiffs appraisal came in lower at 895,000, for a total take. But in addition to a total take, the plaintiff was seeking damages for precondemnation, and sometimes if theyre successful with precondemnation damages, theyre given greater than the value of the property and thats what theyre entitled to in addition to the value of the property. So, I mean, in some of these cases just those standards alone could be over a million and youre looking at close to another million for the value of the property. Governor: But in this case it sounds like youve settled it for less than what the state appraised it at as well as what the plaintiff appraised it at. Karissa Vero: Correct. And thats with attorneys fees, which the plaintiff is entitled to by statute. Governor: So it sounds like a pretty good settlement then. Karissa Vero: Yeah. Governor: Good job. Karissa Vero: Thank you. Governor: Board members, do you have any further questions with regard to this Agenda item? Secretary of State: No, Governor. Governor: Hearing no further questions, the Chair will accept a motion to approve a cash settlement in the sum of $650,000. Secretary of State: So moved. Attorney General: Second.
Governor: Motion by the Secretary of State to approve the cash settlement in the sum of $650,000 as described in Agenda Item No. 4. Second by the Attorney General. Any questions or discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Motion passes unanimously. *5.
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH A FORMER EMPLOYEE

A. Department of Business & Industry
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 240, Section 1, Subsection 2 3 of the 2011 Legislature, the Department of Business & Industry requests authority to contract with a former employee to provide services as an Administrative Law Judge/Hearing Officer who would be responsible for holding evidentiary meetings, issuing proposals for decisions on license denial, license revocation or suspensions, administrative fine and unlicensed activity cases coming under the jurisdiction of the entities regulated by the Department of Business and Industry. The term of assignment would be upon approval through June 30, 2013 or when the authorized funds are depleted.
B. Department of Health and Human Services Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services
Request authority to contract with a former employee to replace the full-time Medical Director position at Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services and the .51 position at the Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services with a contract for a permanent statewide Psychiatric Medical Director. Clerks Recommendation: I recommend approval. Motion By: Secretary of State Comments: Seconded By: Attorney General Vote: 3-0
Governor: Well move on to Agenda Item No. 5, authorization to contract with a former employee. Ms. Day. Clerk: Thank you. The Department of Business and Industry is requesting to contract with Samuel Thompson, a prior employee with the state for services as an Administrative Law Judge Hearing Officer. The term of the assignment would be upon approval through June 30, 2013, or when the authorized funds are depleted. Governor. And Mr. Thompson was formerly with the Public Utilities Commission; is that correct? Clerk: Yes. Governor: And he was the Chairman of Public Utilities Commission? Clerk: I believe thats true, yes.
Governor: I have no questions with regard to this matter. Board Members, any questions with regard to Agenda Item 5A? Secretary of State: No, Governor. Governor: Why dont we do both of these, Agenda Item 5B. Clerk: Thank you. The Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services is requesting to contract with Dr. Linda White, a former employee, to replace the full-time medical director position at Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services, and a half-time position at Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services with a contract for a permanent statewide psychiatric medical director. Dr. White is currently the -shes the pediatric -- she was employed as the senior psychiatrist at Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services, and also employed as the medical director. Governor: And this is a two-step process. We approve the state contracting with a former employee, and then the contract is contained within the latter part of the Agenda, correct? Clerk: Yes. This is related to Contract No. 38, which is also on the Agenda for this morning. Governor: Okay. I have no questions with regard to this Agenda item. Board members? Secretary of State: No, Governor. Governor: The Chair will accept a motion for approval to authorize the contract with a former employee as described in Agenda Item 5A and 5B. Secretary of State: So moved. Attorney General: Ill second. Governor: Theres a motion to authorize the contract with a former employee by the Secretary of State, second by the Attorney General. Any questions or discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Motion passes unanimously.
*6.
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION PROVIDER AGREEMENT

A. Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Division
The Rehabilitation Division is requesting Board of Examiners approval of a services provider agreement and related procedures for the Vocational Rehabilitation and Bureau of Disability Adjudication programs. Clerks Recommendation: I recommend approval.
Motion By: Secretary of State Comments: Governor: Agenda Item No. 6.
Seconded By: Attorney General
Vote: 3-0
Clerk: Thank you. Agenda Item No. 6 is a provider agreement that is requested from the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Division. The division is requesting approval of a services provider agreement and related procedures for the Vocational Rehabilitation and Bureau of Disability Adjudication programs. Governor: And do we have a representative from DETR here today? Good morning. If youd just state your names for the record, please. Maureen Cole: Maureen Cole. Im the Administrator of DETRs Rehabilitation Division. With me this morning is Melaine Mason who is the Deputy Administrator for Operations, Rehabilitation Division, and Kimberlee Tarter who is the Deputy Administrator of Purchasing. Governor: Thank you. And my questions are basic. I went through this. What was happening before, what will this change, and how does that affect the Board of Examiners? Maureen Cole: Previously we were using a direct purchase authorization that was authorized by the Purchasing Division. Recently theres been a change and a request to use contracts that provide greater protection for the state in terms of insurance, licensure, qualification to do business, those kinds of things. Because the Rehabilitation Division to provide services for our clients uses many, many, many service providers, we asked if we would be able to develop a provider agreement that could be approved one time by the Board and then used more expediently rather than going through the entire contract process, which can sometimes take two, four, six months in order to provide services more quickly to our clients. So thats our purpose here this morning. Governor: And this is similar to what we -- I dont know if it was last month or the month before, that we did with Health and Human Services, correct? Maureen Cole: Yes. Governor: And did these contracts -- did these affect contracts that formerly came to the Board of Examiners and now will not as a result of these provider agreements? Maureen Cole: Yes, thats correct. We will be able to contract for these services much more quickly and expediently, and therefore provide services to our clients more quickly and expediently as well. Governor: Is there a threshold that would be reached that it would come to the Board of Examiners attention?
Maureen Cole: I think weve written these contracts up to $100,000. So anything in excess of $100,000 would be contracted individually and therefore come before the Board. Governor: Is that per provider? Maureen Cole: Per provider, yes. Governor: And the main policy for you to do this is again to expedite services. So give me concrete example of somebody who needs services but isnt getting them because of the procedure that we have in place right now. Maureen Cole: Well, I think a very egregious example would be someone who has a very serious eye condition who is in danger of losing their sight if its not treated immediately. If we do not have a doctor who was qualified to treat that particular condition, that person might in fact lose their eyesight if they didnt have other insurance or were able to access providers accept through vocational rehabilitation. So if we have a contract provider agreement with a physician, we can obtain those services the same day sometimes. Governor: And thats hypothetically. Have there been people that have been affected because of this, because of the process that we have in place right now? Maureen Cole: Well, under the direct purchase authority we were able to provide those services without a contract. Kimberlee Tarter: And for the record, Kimberlee Tarter of the Purchasing Division. Purchasing worked with DETR on this, and we took a look at it, and some of the issues that were presented to us which we felt this made a good fit was the fact that the clients are not in a situation where DETR can go out and say you need to get three bids. So this was kind of the genesis of the direct purchase authority. The clients are by federal law allowed to go and select which provider they want to use for their services. So that was one piece of it. The second piece was that these providers are not amenable in most instances to sign the states eight-page contract for these services prior to providing them, and then it was the delay in getting these services to the client because when -- if we waive the procurement process, which the direct purchase authority did, then we still had the contracting process, so we removed 30 days to 45 days of that timeframe, but we didnt remove the timeframe for coming to the Board of Examiners. And when these individuals need to get measurements and fitted for their prosthetic limbs, when they need to get teeth pulled and fitted for dentures, its more of a medically driven, but not in all instances because it can be more broad than that. But at the end of the day, what theyre looking for is the ability to get core services to clients in a timely fashion. And there are services that dont fit within the realm of the procurement world, but they still have a legal obligation to ensure that the clients that they are allowing to enter into agreements with providers, that theyre responsible providers, that they have the appropriate licensure, professionally for the State of Nevada through the Secretary of States office. So the provider limit doesnt waive all those requirements or obligations, its simply expediting the approval process so that we are not, and unfortunately, this is what was frequently happening,
providing services outside of a contract. We were doing a lot of clean up. There were retroactive -- the issues with the DPA, there were client -- there were contracts that werent being done that should have been done, that was a DPA problem, and then the DPA really was commodity focused, and so we were doing a lot of confirming which is purchasing speak for, okay, lets clean the mess up. Weve provided the services, now we have to fix it could we can get the provider paid. And so thats really what were trying to do is stop that other issue of providing services and getting them paid and contracted after the fact. Governor: And I dont want you to misconstrue. I do not want to stand in the way of clients getting services. And its important to know administratively that this is an improvement. I just also wanted to ensure that theres that oversight that this Board typically provides, so that youre comfortable with that as well in terms of oversight of these contracts that this Board will no longer see. Kimberlee Tarter: Yes. We are in essence creating policy through the administration of DETR providing I think what is at the end of the day going to be a greater oversight than what we had in the past, because there were things slipping through that should have come to the Board that didnt, or while they didnt need to come to the Board, we still werent following proper contracting process. So I think administratively were doing something thats a little bit more prudent in our course of action, and then for the benefit of the clients as well. And in honesty, the concept really did come from DHHS and the provider agreements and how they came into play, why they came into play, and using that as the basis to move forward today, and were requesting approval. Governor: Thank you. I have no further questions. Board members, do you have any questions? Secretary of State: No, Governor. Governor: The Chair will accept a motion to approve the provider agreements as provided within our binders. Secretary of State: So moved. Attorney General: Second. Governor: Motion by the Secretary of State, second by the Attorney General. Any questions or discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much.
*7.
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION STATE ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL

A. The State Administrative Manual (SAM) is being submitted to the Board of Examiners for approval of additions in the following Chapter: 0300 State Parks.
B.
The State Administrative Manual (SAM) is being submitted to the Board of Examiners for approval of deletions in the following Chapter: 1900 Public Works Division.
Clerks Recommendation: I recommend approval. Motion By: Secretary of State Comments: Seconded By: Attorney General Vote: 3-0
Governor: Agenda Item No. 7, State Administrative Manual. Ms. Day. Clerk: Thank you, Governor. Would you prefer to take these items together, or would you like them separate? Governor: Yes. Yes. Id like them together, please. Clerk: Thank you. The first item is a change to the State Administrative Manual for the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks. It is clean up language due to an elimination of a statute. The second one is with the Department of Administration, Public Works Division. It is also clean up language due to changes in Nevada, revised statutes and some name changes. So they are mainly housekeeping in nature. Governor: I noticed in this first one it was from a 1999 legislative change? Clerk: Yes. We should have cleaned this one up already. Governor: Better late than never though, right? Any questions from Board members on Agenda Item No. 7? Secretary of State: No, Governor. Governor: The Chair will accept a motion for approval of the amendments to the State Administrative Manual. Secretary of State: So moved. Attorney General: Second. Governor: The Secretary of State has made a motion to approve the amendments to the State Administrative Manual as provided in Agenda Item No. 7. The Attorney General has seconded the motion. Any questions or discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Motion passes unanimously.
*8.
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION ALLOCATION FROM THE CONTINGENCY FUND
REQUEST FOR GENERAL FUND INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE
Pursuant to NRS 353.268, an agency or officer shall submit a request to the State Board of Examiners for an allocation by the Interim Finance Committee from the Contingency Fund. A. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION $33,390
The Department of Administration, Directors Office, is requesting an allocation of $33,390 from the Interim Finance Committees (IFC) Contingency Fund to fund the first year of a two year contract with Arbitrage Compliance Specialists that will provide assistance to the state in complying with the United States Internal Revenue Services (IRS) rules and regulations regarding arbitrage. Clerks Recommendation: I recommend approval. Motion By: Secretary of State Comments: Seconded By: Attorney General Vote: 3-0
Governor: Agenda Item No. 8, request for general fund allocation from the IFC Contingency Fund. Ms. Day. Clerk: Thank you. This is a request from the Department of Administration Directors office for an IFC Contingency Fund allocation in the amount of $33,390. It will fund the first year of a two-year contract with Arbitrage Compliance Specialists that will provide assistance to the state in complying with the United States Internal Revenue Services rules and regulations regarding arbitrage. This does relate to Contract No. 10. As a background for this request, this is a service that was previously performed in the Controllers office by an employee who has recently retired, and it was through some meetings with Controller Wallin, she had requested that the Department of Administration take on the administration of this contract. Governor: Thank you. I have a few questions. Now, this was a responsibility that was with an employee of the Controllers office. We, being the Board of Examiners, approved a similar contract several months ago because there was a dispute between the finding of the person in the Controllers office and the Department of Administration; is that correct? Does my memory serve me right? Clerk: Yes. There was a contract. It was under the BOE thresholds, so it was approved by the budget division, but there was a contract with the same entity to provide this service. Governor: And so the person who was within the Controllers office is now retired. Clerk: Yes. Governor: Theres nobody within the state to perform this function, and we have a deadline coming up for the review of this issue with regard to arbitrage? Clerk: Correct.
Governor: So why are we contracting for two years? Or I guess one year, and to be more specific, why is it that this responsibility cannot stay with the Controllers office? Clerk: The Controller had requested that -- the Controller felt that it was more appropriate to be in the Department of Administration as opposed to the Controllers office. Governor: Is that more of a question for the legislature? I mean, is that -- is this something that is statutory mandated? I mean, I just dont know if we have an authority today to move the responsibilities of a position from the Controllers office to the Department of Administration. Clerk: The arbitrage calculation is not specifically set in statute on which entity will perform the service. It has historically been performed by an employee in the Controllers office. And since that individual retired, it was not a full-time position in the Controllers office. It was part of that employees time. But there is nothing in statute that specifically states which entity will perform the service. Governor: So if it does move to the Department of Administration, will the money that paid for it previously move to the Department of Administration to pay for it? Clerk: The Controller is not requesting that the position nor the funding for the position that provided the service transfer for the Department of Administration. She prefers that it stay in the Controllers office. Governor: But what if we made as a condition of the transfer the responsibility -- or the approval of this contract and the transfer of the responsibility from the Controllers office to the Department of Administration contingent upon the funding following it. Can we do that? Or can I -- I mean, that would be my suggestion, but Clerk: The position that was performing the function in the Controllers office, it was not the full-time function of that position, so I believe without reducing the -- from a full-time equivalent position to a lower amount could there be available funding without talking to the Controller to see if she has possible savings in her budget elsewhere, I cannot answer that question. Governor: Well, the other issue is precedent, and what Im concerned about is if there are different offices within the state who decide they dont want to do anything and do a function anymore and then move it to the Department of Transportation, but the money doesnt follow it, then its going to create some budget issues. So is that valid? Clerk: Yes, it absolutely is. There is also going to be some work on the Department of Administration staff, whether its on State staff to still perform some work related to this contract, although we are contracting for the calculation itself through this arbitrage consultant, there is still State staff time that is required to compile information for that consultant. Governor: So its a double whammy in terms of the contingency fund absorbing the cost of having to perform the function as well as staff time to review the results of the contractee or -that it is performing the service.
Clerk: Correct. Governor: Or contractor, excuse me. Clerk: To provide the information required for the contractor to complete the calculation. Governor: Well, we need to retain this consultant or this contractor to get the work done, but I have a lot of outstanding questions and concerns with regard to some of the consequences if we were to approve this. So if were to approve this Contract No. 10 and approve this allocation from IFC just to get us through this next time period for the arbitrage reporting requirement for the state, can we revisit these issues that Ive brought up today? Clerk: Absolutely. Governor: Okay. I have no further questions. Questions from other Board members? Secretary of State: Governor, I probably a lot of follow-up questions, but since were going to revisit it, Ill withhold until its brought back before us. Governor: Well, we -- Mr. Secretary of State, are your questions similar to mine or Secretary of State: Somewhat similar. I mean, Im wondering, sort of generally, this position that was authorized within the Controllers office that previously had oversight over these responsibilities, was oversight over the arbitrage issues listed in the class specs or the performance measures of that position? Clerk: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I dont know if they were specifically listed in those class specs. It was a (inaudible) accountant that performed the arbitrage calculations in the Controllers office as part of her job function, so I dont know if its specifically lined out in that position that that function resided there, or if its a generic -- more of a generic class specification that kind of falls in the other duties as assigned area. Secretary of State: Okay. So we may be able to find out when the legislature in fact authorized this position whether or not they contemplated the specific performance of these duties. Clerk: Yes. We can look at that. Secretary of State: So, Ms. Day, if we approve the first year of -- if we approve this in the sum of $68,190, thats for two years, correct? Clerk: Correct. I just found an error in the posting. The first item, the title says $68,190. In the body of the item, its the correct amount of $33,390, which we are -- thats the amount we are requesting. The $68,190 would be for the full contract for both fiscal years, and we only need one year to get us through the biennium. The second year of the contract would end up going to
the legislative session through the executive budget process for the funding of the second year of the contract. Governor: So if we approve the 33,390, but we only spend the money to get us through this next arbitrage requirement, are we still bound to the contractor for the rest of the year, or can we just get us through this and then have this further discussion as to whether were going to approve the rest or that this responsibility has to reside with the Controller? Clerk: The contract has a funding out clause in it, so we could request the contract be terminated through the funding out clause, and then revisit the balance of any arbitrage calculation that would be due through the end of the biennium in a subsequent contract if we choose to contract with -- it changed the agency that the contract is with. Governor: So how do we frame a motion to, you know, this question for counsel, but Clerk: Wed have to defer to the Attorney Generals office. Governor: how would we frame a motion to capture that intent? Katie Armstrong: Thank you, Governor. To capture the intent to bring it back? Governor: Yes. Katie Armstrong: And were currently on Item No. 8, which is the request for the general fund allocation. So this item, youre just going to recommend the amount of the allocation and indicate you want to bring it back in two years, or it wasnt two years, I dont know what was your timeframe? Governor: I guess my next question then would be when is the reporting deadline? Clerk: Thank you. There are some arbitrage calculations that are due. There is one thats a statutorily required recalculation that must occur, and then we have ten annual checkup calculations that are not statutorily required that they should be done between now and November, 2010 -- excuse me, 2012. Its not retroactive. Governor: You almost brought up a whole set of new questions there. Why dont we do this, I think the best way is to take a motion to approve the 33,390, and then -- but also provide that the matter will be revisited upon answering the questions that have been asked today. Perhaps we can put it on next months Agenda. Clerk: Absolutely. We will bring it back. Governor: That may have been not real clear, Mr. Secretary, but Secretary of State: Ill move to approve Agenda Item No. 8, the request for general fund allocation from the Interim Finance Committee Contingency Fund in the amount of $33,390,
contingent upon the request that it be brought forward next month for the Controller and the Department of Administration to respond to the questions that we raised today. Governor: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Secretary of State: Im not sure if it was clear, but Governor: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. It was clear. It was very clear. We have a motion by the Secretary of State. Is there a second? Can you hear me, Madam Attorney General? Attorney General: Sorry. I had you muted. I second it, but with further discussion. I have a quick question, and it may be for the staff. On our Agenda, which is the Consent Agenda, Item No. 10 is the actually contract for approval that they want us to approve today. So are we saying that were going to go ahead and approve the allocation of the funds for one year, and approve the contract -- entering into the contract for one year so that Item No. 10 would be adjusted for the amount? Clerk: Governor, if I may, the contract as agendized is a two-year contract. So if you vote on the contract, it has to remain as put in place in the Agenda. Governor: All right. So now we have to approve a two-year contract because if we hold it up for another month what will the consequences be if were gonna put this on the next Agenda. Clerk: Thank you. The consequences of placing it on the next Agenda is that the contractor cannot start the arbitrage calculation process. We do have a few that are due immediately. Theres mainly one recalculation that is due immediately, and it a statutorily required recalculation. Governor: But there is a funding out clause. So even if we approve it for two years, and this item is put on next months Agenda, and we answer the questions -- or we get our questions answered and we decide we dont -- we cant or wont do this and have the movement permanently to the Department of Administration, we have the ability to cancel the contract? Clerk: Yes, that is correct. Secretary of State: One follow-up question. Dont you have the ability to approve an amount below $10,000 within the Department of Administration? Is it possible to have the contractor work under an interim contract for an amount under $10,000 to complete the immediate work that needs to be completed this month and then bring the remainder of the balance forward next month? Clerk: We could absolutely do that. The only problem that I see with that, without approving the IFC Contingency Fund allocation, is we will have to find money in the Budget Divisions budget to cover that contract. So that way that -- I guess one way that we could handle it is to approve either -- not approve the contract, and we can do a contract under $10,000, and then either approve the IFC Contingency Fund allocation at a lower amount, the current amount or not
approve that piece at all and ask for that to come out of the Budget Division budget which will be pretty tight this year with building the executive budget. Secretary of State: The IFC Contingency Fund request is just a recommendation that we make that goes to the legislature. So we could recommend approval of the full amount. You could then put in place an interim contract of not less than $10,000 to get them through the work, in which case we could revisit next month, and possibly approve or reject the entire contract? Clerk: Yes. The other thing that could happen is if the full amount of the IFC Contingency Fund request were approved, both by Board of Examiners and by the IFC, any amount that is not spent automatically reverts back to the IFC Contingency Fund. So if we only do a contract for $10,000, the balance of the IFC Contingency Fund would revert -- allocation would revert back to the IFC Contingency Fund. So it would not all be spent. Secretary of State: I guess we have a few options. Governor: The current motion to approve the first year of the contract in the sum of $33,390. And the Attorney General has seconded, but has brought up a question on discussion on the motion. Does that satisfy your question, Madam Attorney General? Attorney General: Yes. Governor: Do you still wish to proceed with your motion, Mr. Secretary of State? Secretary of State: Yes, Governor. I think we can move forward with approving the request of the Interim Finance Committee in the full amount, and then with respect to the individual contract, make a recommendation that the Department of Administration enter an interim contract in the amount less than $10,000 which they have the authority to do, that that would give us some flexibility to have more time to consider this next month, in which case the contract could be brought forward for approval. Governor: Any further questions or discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Motion passes unanimously.
*9.
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION VICTIMS OF CRIME FY 2012 4TH QUARTER REPORT AND FY 2013 1ST QUARTER RECOMMENDATION
NRS 217.260 requires the Board of Examiners to estimate available revenue and anticipated claim costs each quarter. If revenues are insufficient to pay anticipated claims, the statute directs that claim payments must be reduced proportionately. The Victims of Crime Program Coordinator recommends paying the Priority 1 & 2 claims at 100% and Priority 3 claims at 100% of the approved amount for the 1st quarter of FY 2013. Clerks Recommendation: I recommend approval. Motion By: Secretary of State Comments: Seconded By: Attorney General Vote: 3-0
Governor: Agenda Item No. 9, Victims of Crime, Fourth Quarter Report. Clerk: Thank you, Governor. The Victims of Crime Program on a quarterly basis comes back to the Board of Examiners and estimates the available revenue and anticipated claim costs for the quarter. The program recommends paying Priority 1 & 2 claims at 100% and Priority 3 claims at 100% of the approved amount for the 1st quarter of FY 2013. Governor: My only question is theres a reference in the report, and you may not know the answer to this, but its on page five, that the federal grant was in the sum of 4,541,000, which was higher than last years grant, and is there a reason why we got more money than we thought we were going to get? Clerk: I would like to defer to Evan Dale of the Administrative Services Division. He might know the answer to that question. Oh, he just left. Governor: Bad timing. Its not that important. I can get the answer later. Clerk: I actually do know a little bit about this federal grant, and the federal grant does -- or has historically kind of had peaks and valleys in the grant. There are reserved balances in the Victims of Crime Program that we are able to offset medical costs when the grant goes -- the grant amount goes up and down. Governor: The program is performing extremely well. Clerk: Absolutely. Governor: And theyre reserving money for later in the event that we dont get as much money next time, and I get all that. I just was curious as to why that changes each year and why we get more some years and less others. So, again, that can be provided in a separate memo if youll do that for me. Clerk: Okay. Sure. Attorney General: Governor, theres a representative down here that might have the answer. I dont think she actually could hear your question though. Governor: Am I not speaking Rebecca Salazar: Governor, Im Rebecca Salazar, Program Manager for Victims of Crime. Could you repeat the question, please? Governor: And Im sorry if I wasnt speaking loud enough for you to hear. Just simply why this years federal grant was more than you thought it was going to be, and whats the policy, or how is the determination made as to how much money youre going to get each year, or the Victims of Crime Program is going to get each year.
Rebecca Salazar: The federal grant, what we receive is based on a state match. So for every 60 cents that we spend, we get -- I think -- Im not sure exactly the calculation, but its a 60 percent match. So it dates back two years. So what we spent in FY10, then we get the grant in FY12. So in FY10 we spent more than usual, so it resulted in this very large grant that we received this year. Governor: Okay. Thank you very much. Then well move on to Agenda Item No. 10, Victims of Crime Program appeal. Clerk: Thank you, Governor. Governor: Ms. Day, Im sorry. Is that an action item? It says for possible action. Do we need to approve the report? Clerk: Yes. Governor: Okay. Then well move back to Agenda No. 9. The Chair will accept a motion for approval of the Victims of Crime FY 2012 fourth quarter report, and FY 2013 first quarter recommendation. Secretary of State: So moved. Attorney General: Second. Governor: Motion by the Secretary of State, second by the Attorney General. Any questions or discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Motion passes unanimously.
*10. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION VICTIMS OF CRIME PROGRAM (VOCP) APPEAL

Pursuant to NRS 217.117 Section 3, the applicant or Clerk of the Board may, within 15 days after the appeals officer renders a decision, appeal the decision to the Board. The Board shall consider the appeal on the record at its next scheduled meeting if the appeal and the record are received by the Board at least 5 days before the meeting. Within 15 days after the meeting the Board shall render its decision in the case or give notice to the applicant that a hearing will be held. The hearing must be held within 30 days after the notice is given and the Board shall render its decision in the case within 15 days after the hearing. The Board may affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the appeals officer.
A. Thomas Shea
Mr. Shea appeals the denial of his Motion for Reconsideration for VOCP assistance. Mr. Sheas claim was closed due to harassment of and threats to the Hearings Division and Victims of Crime Program staff.
Clerks Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board uphold the denial of this claim. Motion By: Secretary of State Comments: Seconded By: Attorney General Vote: 3-0
Governor: Now, Im sorry, Ms. Day. Agenda Item No. 10. Clerk: Thank you. Pursuant to NRS 217.117, an applicant, through the Victims of Crime Program, may within 15 days of an appeals officer rendering a decision, appeal the decision to the Board. In this case, the individual, Mr. Thomas Shea, has requested appeal of the denial of his motion to reconsideration. And as a little background, Mr. Shea appeals the denial of his Motion for Reconsideration for the Victims of Crime Program assistance. His claim was closed due to harassment of and threats to the Hearings Division and Victims of Crime Program staff. Governor: Thank you. And, Ms. Salazar, are you here for this matter? Rebecca Salazar: Yes, sir, I am. Governor: Okay. Now, Im going to briefly go through the process as I understand it, and I may be skipping some parts, but I just want to make sure that I have it right, and then well get to the fundamental question which was the specific nature of the harassment and the denial of his claim. But Mr. Shea was seriously injured back in 2003 I believe it was. He was hit in the eye with a shot glass outside a bar, lost his entire one eye and loss the sight in another eye. He -- the Victims of Crime Program paid for all his medical expenses. He came back and asked for a years worth of salary for his compensation as well as some dental fees. That matter was heard and ultimately the salary was approved for the lost wages and it was bifurcated for a separate consideration of the dental costs. And thats where I kind of lose the trail, but ultimately I think what I saw was that his time for appeal passed, and so he did a Motion for Reconsideration, but somewhere during that time period there was some statements made to your office by Mr. Shea that was the underlying reason for the dismissal of his matter. And I guess Im curious as to, you know, Im not going to condone that kind of behavior, but Im curious as to what the nature of those phone calls and the statements that were made by Mr. Shea. Rebecca Salazar: Sure. The Victims of Crime, were used to dealing with people who are very emotional. This is something that we deal with every day. Mr. Sheas threats, however, were a little more serious. He said things about how many people hes stabbed, and, you know, hes been thrown in the hole while he was in prison for stabbing people, and hell do whatever he has to do to get what he wants, that type of thing. Once I transferred the claim here to Las Vegas, he made a statement to me about -- I was explaining to him policy views and, you know, saying things that he didnt agree with. And he said that hed come down to Las Vegas and see me in person and see if I still said no, that kind of thing. He was just a -- on a different level than were used to dealing with. You know, people get mad at us all the time. Thats not the issue. This was a little bit more serious. You know, I mean, he went into great detail about things hed done to other people, and tweeting that he would do those things to us. And the Northern offices he was visiting every day, which was one of the reasons I transferred it down to Las Vegas so then
its a little less threatening, you know, its easier to deal with him by phone. But they dont have security in those offices. They were intimidated and in fear. Governor: And again, I -- Im sorry that you had to go through that, and I just think it was important that we know specifically what was going on. We being the Board. And, you know, this is the ultimate sanction in terms of dismissing a case based on that type of behavior, but I just dont -- given what youve today me, I have no reason to question that, and I will be supportive of that. Did I get through the procedure correctly though in terms of the process? Rebecca Salazar: You did. His ultimate dismissal by the appeals officer didnt have anything to do with the threats. It was simply just because he was filing outside of the timeframe allowed. The appeals officer didnt know anything about the threats. So they were totally separate, just the timing is, you know, prior to his Motion for Reconsideration is when I had closed the claim because during that time period he was, you know, harassing the staff, but the AO decision didnt have anything to do with it. That was simply based on the timeline. Governor: Thank you. Then I believe, Mr. Shea, is that you? Okay. Ill give you an opportunity to speak. Do Board members have any further questions of Ms. Salazar? Okay. Mr. Shea, are -- is that you here today? Thomas Shea: Yes, sir. Governor: Okay. If you would please step forward and Ill give you an opportunity to present your case. Thomas Shea: For the record, Thomas Shea. Its an honor. Basic stated facts were presented to Ms. Salazar in Vegas concerning the stability of somebody who deals with such a traumatic experience, and then following it up with the Department of Corrections era of ones life can be very hard on somebody as far as their mental stress and the capacity to accept the wanton behavior of certain entities when trying to file claims and get things moving in a proper manner. Never would I ever disrespect the staff of an agency that is trying to help me gain my footing back into society and get back to where I was originally before the crime. I do believe that there was a (inaudible) twist on words to an extent where there might have been assumptions of, its hard to say the word, you know, threats and harassment, but, you know, if you just state the statutes, I dont think that would be a threat. Wed all be guilty. I simply just -- like I said, I do apologize if it was taken the wrong way, however, I just dont believe it was so. Governor: And well get -- Ill get to the nub of it, Mr. Shea. So you disagree? Do you deny that you made threats to Thomas Shea: Oh, yes. Governor: to representatives of the Victims of Crime Program both in Northern Nevada and Southern Nevada?
Thomas Shea: Oh, yes, absolutely. And I do have from Northern Nevada, George Crown actually wrote out a statement. You know, actually I dont believe I have that copy. I do believe I faxed a copy to your office, excuse me. Secretary of State: I have a copy. Thomas Shea: Because he, of course, is very distraught that such allegations were made, and he doesnt understand. Of course, he understands the traumatic experiences Ive had to deal with, and then, of course, when my case was taken to Las Vegas, since then its just been a nightmare to try and solidify the conclusion to this matter in a reasonable timeframe without having to state certain facts, policies, rules, regulations concerning 217. Governor: Ms. Salazar, do you have this statement by Mr. Crown who is the Rebecca Salazar: I do not. Governor: Because hes, as you know, the Compensation Officer with the State of Nevada Board of Examiners Victims of Crime Program, and Ill read it. It says, I George Crown hereby declare that Thomas Shea has conducted business in regards to claims in a profession -- I think he meant to say professional manner. Never have we ever had anything remotely close to the accusations stated. Thomas Shea is very courteous and diligent. We are very pleased to have Thomas Shea and his commitment to success in surpassing the elements that surround being a victim of such a violent crime. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Nevada, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed August 13, 2012 in Reno, Washoe County, Nevada. So now we have a -- I guess Ill give you an opportunity to respond to that. Rebecca Salazar: That confuses me. George Crown told me by phone -- he never put anything in writing, but he told me he felt threatened and afraid of Mr. Shea. I do have an email that I didnt include in my packet, but its from a representative of the appeals office who Mr. Shea made the direct threat to. I can read it. I just didnt include it because I didnt want there to be any retaliation. I didnt know how Mr. Shea would react seeing that in writing. But I -- that confuses me. Mr. Crowns statement confuses me. Governor: Me as well, because Mr. Crown is the one thats been directly involved in the case, and if I recall, he was the one who appeared in the proceedings of January 19, 2012, and has been the one thats been dealing directly with Mr. Shea. Rebecca Salazar: Yes, he did. Governor: So of all the people in your office, Mr. Crown would be the one whos dealt with Mr. Shea the most, correct? Rebecca Salazar: Id agree with -- correct, yes. Governor: So as I said, you know, Ive got a sworn statement thats dated yesterday, or day before -- is today the 14th?
Thomas Shea: It was yesterday. Governor: Yeah, yesterday, by Mr. Crown. Rebecca Salazar: I dont know what to say about that, Governor. I -- like I said, it conflicts with what he told me. I dont know why he would say that. Im sure that over the last few months since Mr. Sheas claim has been moved to Las Vegas, I doubt that Mr. Crowns had any problems with him. Governor: Yeah. And Rebecca Salazar: But thats not what he relayed to me. He told me he was in fear. So I dont know why he would put that in writing. Attorney General: Governor, can I ask a question? What -- where did we get that letter? Secretary of State: (Inaudible) direct questions to Mr. Shea. This letter was faxed to me, the first page of which is a letter signed by Mr. Shea. The second page was the witness statement that was just read into the record. Did you fax this to my office? Thomas Shea: I did. Secretary of State: And did you write this first letter? Is this your signature on Thomas Shea: That is -- that was my cover letter. Secretary of State: Okay. And with regards to the witness statement, how did you come into possession of this witness statement? Thomas Shea: Upon visiting Mr. Crown. I asked him if it was appropriate for me to do so and he said without a doubt, completely beside himself with wonderings of why such accusations would even be directed towards me. So Secretary of State: When did you visit with Mr. Crown? Thomas Shea: That was yesterday, first thing in the morning, and then later on -- about noon for the finalization for him to sign the Secretary of State: Did you prepare the statement, or did he prepare Thomas Shea: We both -- well, we both prepared it. We went over it and agreed that certain stating of legal statutes wouldnt be quite appropriate for the matter, so he said just keep it -- to cut out the legal statutes which actually was a page, so I basically just deleted a couple paragraphs and had to print it out.
Secretary of State: Did you write the statement for him in advance, or did he write it himself? Thomas Shea: He scribbled notes on the back one of the pages I had. It was formulated together, yes. And he read it and signed it and we both agreed and Secretary of State: So these are his own words? Thomas Shea: Yes, sir. Secretary of State: Okay. And who took the statement and actually put it on the legal pleading? Thomas Shea: Well, the legal pleading was on my Word spread -- my Word program. Im very new to computer technology and the whole realm of computers as a whole. Secretary of State: Okay. And then finally, this witness, Eileen Wood, is that somebody you know personally or Thomas Shea: Eileen Wood is the Assistant Coordinator Number 3, I do believe, of the Victims of Violent Crime Program. Secretary of State: Okay. So this was prepared and signed at the Victims of Crime Program office? Thomas Shea: And witnessed by Eileen Wood. Yes, sir. Secretary of State: Okay. Governor: And just one other follow up. Did Mr. Shea do this of his own free will? Was he intimated -- did you intimidate him in any way? Thomas Shea: Oh, absolutely not. George Crown is a very solid gentleman. Hes been a family friend for many, many, many years and besides that, he has no idea why the statements were made. We both read this Agenda and were completely blown away. Governor: When you say hes a family friend, do you have a social relationship outside of this matter with the Victims of Crime Program? Thomas Shea: Well, I remember him from the neighborhood. He had a couple dogs that he used to -- that would help get the horses when they would leave the pasture when I was a kid, so the dogs used to round up the horses and thats how I remember him. Yeah. But we never spoke though. He was an older gentleman, you know, and I was just a child. Governor: So you knew him as a kid, Mr. Crown, as a child, right? Is that what you said? Thomas Shea: Oh, yeah, eight, nine, ten years old, I remember.
Governor: Did you have any dealings with him between that time and the time you were injured? Thomas Shea: Absolutely not, no. Governor: Okay. And then were all of your dealings with Mr. Crown from the time you were injured until now based upon his responsibilities and functions as the compensation officer at the -- with the State of Nevada? Thomas Shea: Absolutely. At the most professional level. And reason being we have no idea why it was transferred to Las Vegas, and the denials and the repercussions its had on medical bills and time periods have been a constraint. Governor: Well, you can understand why were having all these questions, because we have Ms. Salazar whos telling us one thing Thomas Shea: Right. Governor: and she likely would not have had the case transferred to Southern Nevada if Mr. -- it sounds like Mr. Crown would be the one who would want to have it moved if he was the one that was dealing with you most often, and it was moved to Southern Nevada to avoid the confrontations that Ms. Salazar has described in Northern Nevada. Thomas Shea: It was moved to Southern Nevada by Ms. Salazar at the Southern Nevada Las Vegas office unbeknownst to George Crown. He had no idea that it had even been moved until we got the letter of denial. And, of course, that was just a statement of fact, as I, you know, was trying to deal with Rebecca Salazar down in Vegas, and stating facts of the last few years, and my grammatical parameters as far as legalese terms, its just what it is. I didnt mean for her to take anything the wrong way as far as Governor: Again, what Ms. Salazar has presented, its kind of hard to take that a different way. I mean, its pretty direct. Thomas Shea: Its very direct, its very overwhelming, and unfortunately it feels as if Im a victim again, in a very sinister way, and its just something that Im dealing with. Governor: Ms. Salazar, youve represented that Mr. Crown had made statements to you that he was concerned as well. Did he provide any of that in writing, or -- it sounds like youve been Rebecca Salazar: No. Governor: This is all news to you today? Rebecca Salazar: It is, yes. He didnt provide anything to me in writing. It was all over the phone. The catalyst for the claim closure was, again, the email that I received from a
representative in the Hearings Division, which is a separate office, and that contains quite graphic threats. So at that point, I just felt, you know, we had dealt with this kind of thing enough, and closed the claim. Thomas Shea: If I may speak, one of the reasons for the anticipation of me to visit Las Vegas office was because a certain time period of a Wednesday morning needed to be met and the inter department mail service was mailing the said document through the postal service when it could have been hand delivered and done appropriately that day. Instead it had to be delayed a week was -- it was very hard to comprehend why I was being deferred in such a manner. So seven hours Las Vegas. We all love Vegas. Governor: Mr. Shea, I dont want to get into any of that issue. I want to stick with the issue thats before us today which is the nature of the dismissal which is, you know, again, were getting two very different stories today, and now Ms. Salazar is hearing for the first time -- it would be very helpful for me to have Mr. Crown himself appear before the Board. Attorney General: Actually, Governor, I have a suggestion. Because pursuant to statute we can only look at the record before us, and clearly, this is outside of the record, if we still have further questions, our options may be to continue this for a hearing and we ask that Mr. Crown appear and anybody else that works with the Victims of Crime Compensation Fund who had interactions with Mr. Shea, that had concerns of -- that he harassing. That is an option for us. But I do -- I have to object to this letter coming into us now and us considering it at this time because its not part of the record. Thomas Shea: I apologize for that. Rebecca Salazar: Can I make a statement also, please? Governor: Yeah. Ms. Salazar. Rebecca Salazar: The claim closure is secondary to the issue at hand, so that, you know, we may want to consider that also. What Mr. Shea is appealing today is his denial for dental work based on that Motion for Reconsideration, so theres also that to consider aside from the claim closure. Governor: That isnt before the Board today though, is it? I thought there was Rebecca Salazar: It is. Governor: some procedural requirements that had not been met. Rebecca Salazar: Im sorry. What was that? Governor: Werent there some procedural deadlines that were not met by Mr. Shea, which is ultimately the reason for the denial of his claim?
Rebecca Salazar: Right. And my understanding from Mr. Sheas written appeal to the Board is that that is what he is appealing, is his denial with his Motion for Reconsideration which concerns the dental work. Thomas Shea: That would fall under NRS 217.200 Governor: Mr. Shea, just a moment, please. Attorney General: So, Governor, this is Catherine. Can I ask a couple questions? Because heres my understanding of the facts. Besides getting to the denial of the motion for consideration, which I understand was denied because it was filed beyond the timeline within which he has to file the motion. So thats clearly a statutory issue. But prior to that, when he originally had his hearing, there was supposed to be two issues the hearing officer was going to hear, lost wages and dental. She only heard the lost wages, so at the end of that hearing, recognizing that the hearing officer had only heard one portion of it, agreed to have another hearing to address the dental portion of that. That was scheduled twice, and for some reason, Mr. Shea and his counsel did not appear or submit, is my understanding, the documentation that the hearing officer wanted to have that second hearing. So if you look at the hearing officers order, and its dated April 10, 2012, apparently there were two previous orders, one on January 25 and February 16 that the hearing officer had issued trying to get this information regarding dental so that she could make a determination. She never heard from either the counsel or Mr. Shea. So that order basically considers the appeal abandoned and dismissed. So my question is for Mr. Shea, why did not respond to the follow up with respect to the dental documentation that the hearing officer had requested of you? Thomas Shea: Im not quite at liberty to discuss the finite details of that, however, my counsel has been removed due to his malpractice. I had no idea that the request was made by Ms. Gallagher. I was aware that she had pointed out several times, and indicated to my counsel at the time to file motions for the remainder of 217.200(4) and medical i.e. dental. And like I said, cant really divulge what is happening there, however, my attorney is -- my attorney is guilty of that. Attorney General: Im sorry. I missed that. Your attorney did what? Thomas Shea: He did not submit the proper motion during the proper time and never even entertained the letters from Ms. Gallagher. I had absolutely no idea anything had transpired between the two and was waiting for my attorney to submit the proper motions. Attorney General: Okay. So Im confused. Either you werent informed from your attorney that you were required to provide it, or you knew about it and were waiting for your attorney to submit the documentation, which was it? Thomas Shea: I clearly knew that there was some motion to be filed between my counsel and Ms. Gallagher. I knew that Ms. Gallagher was stepping down from her bench, and I knew that we would be in front of another justice. However, I was not aware that that had been sent by Ms. Gallagher, and the ball was moving so fast, and since then Ive terminated counsel and taken up
matters myself. So to answer your question, yes, I did know, however, the time period I figured would be in the hands of my counsel since thats what I paid him for. Attorney General: I have no further questions. Thanks. Thank you. Governor: So if I heard your answer right, Mr. Shea, you were aware of the deadline, your counsel didnt meet the deadline. Thomas Shea: I was -- sorry. Mr. Shea, for the record. I was not aware of the deadline whatsoever. That phase of the procedures was not something I had studied. Governor: And did you receive mailings from Victims of Crime Program and all the orders in the proceedings because I -- I havent looked through all of them, but is your address 25924 Vianna (sp?) Avenue, Number 6, Lomita, California? Thomas Shea: No. I have not received any one of those, and that was all mailed to my counsel, and if he were to forward it, it would have been to 128 Palos Verdes Drive, Redondo Beach, to my prior residence. I dont know why Governor: So where is this -- whats this Lomita, California address? Thomas Shea: That was my mothers address. That was a backup address. I have no idea why -- do you have copies? Governor: Its on the certificate of mailing for most of what I see is Thomas Shea: Really? Governor: the mailing. So is that still your -- that address, did you provide that address to the Victims of Crime, or did your counsel? Thomas Shea: That address was provided to the Victims of Crime some time ago. The only thing that I have is this right here, and it is the hearings from Deborah Gallagher, and I had to request this personally here in Carson. Governor: And then I guess there was an address change. Theres a new address of P.O. Box 12662, Reno, Nevada 89501. Is that your current address -- your current mailing address? Thomas Shea: Correct. Yes, sir. Governor: And, Ms. Salazar, is there any Notice of Withdrawal by Counsel in this matter? Rebecca Salazar: Not that Ive received, no. Governor: And did Mr. -- did the attorney, Mr. Pakele P-A-K-E-L-E, did he at any time advise your office that he was no longer representing Mr. Shea?
Rebecca Salazar: No, he did not. And if I can state also that in April, I believe, Mr. Shea and I discussed this appeal to the Board. And when I looked at the decision, I realized that the Hearings Division had used the incorrect appeal rights. They used a form that they normally use for workers comp claims. So I had the appeals office redo that on the correct form, giving Mr. Shea the correct appeal rights, which started the clock again. He was aware of all of this. We talked about it at the time. We sent emails back and forth. So there was a period that he could have appealed within -- and been within the timeframe. He had double the normal appeal period because of the mistake. Governor: Mr. Shea, do you have any explanation for that? According to Ms. Salazar, you were aware of the appeal and still didnt meet the deadline. Thomas Shea: I was aware of the appeal, however, I was not aware of the transgressions that had taken place with my counsel at the time. It was in the latter weeks of April that the official civil complaint was filed, in lieu of the transgressions of my counsel regarding this case. And when one is thrust upon such a monumental task to take on without having any trust in anybody having to deal with it himself, it does require some time. Governor: Well, did you ever call the Victims of Crime Program and say Im having issues with my lawyer, I need more time? Thomas Shea: Thats where I do believe these accusations came rolling about because there was no understanding, there was no trust. I could not trust anybody. I had no cooperation whatsoever and laughing. Governor: No. But that -- that wasnt my question. Did you -- Ive read some of your statements with regard to your issues with your attorney. Thats in the record. But did -- if you were having those issues, did you communicate with the Victims of Crime Program and say, I need more time, and I think they probably would have granted more time had they been aware that you were no longer represented by counsel. Thomas Shea: I tried. However, I have not received any communication from the Victims of Crime down there in the southern jurisdiction of Las Vegas. I cant remember when. Governor: No. But they wouldnt have any reason to believe otherwise. I mean, they -- you were aware of the appeal time. From what youve said today, you had some issues with your attorney, and then there was no further communication between the Victims of Crime office and you, but they would have no reason to because as far as theyre concerned, the times ticking and theyre waiting to hear from you or your attorney. And what youve stated is that you had an issue with your attorney that you separated from him, and then the time ran out and then you decided you needed to seek reconsideration of this decision. Thomas Shea: Correct. I needed to seek reconsideration in this subject, and the appeal Governor: But why wait until after the appeal time had run if you knew that it was running?
Thomas Shea: The only appeal date that we missed was when I was with my counsel. There was no other appeal that was lapsed in any type of amount of days, hours or minutes by me. Governor: No. But, like I said, Im trying to understand the facts, Mr. Shea, and weve got to get to a point of decision here. But I just want to make sure that I have a full grasp of the facts before I accept a motion. But you just said -- or Ms. Salazar said that there was an appeal time, that it was communicated to you and counsel, that you separated from your counsel and then the time period ran. You never communicated with the Victims of Crime Program to let them know that you had separated from your counsel, and then ultimately the time period ran and the order was issued by Ms. Gallagher. Thomas Shea: All my homework was turned in on time when I was representing myself. Anything that happened during my -- when I was represented by counsel, I do believe there was one timeframe that was lapsed, however, we surpassed that and Ms. Gallagher decided and ruled upon it. However, everything I have turned in has been up to par. Governor: I mean, I dont even know, Ms. Salazar, as I also seek the assistance of my Board members, but according to the order, the latest order, which is June 26, 2012, there was a Motion for Reconsideration filed on June 20, 2012 in regards to a decision of April 10, 2012, which the Attorney General has referenced. The appeals officer no longer holds jurisdiction pursuant to NRS 217.117, appeal had to have been taken within 15 days of April 10, 2012. The Motion for Reconsideration is denied which brings us to where we are now, which is the appeal of this order. I dont know if theres anything in statute that gives this Board any authority outside of the statute to make a decision otherwise. I guess one last question, Mr. Shea, have you taken this -- if you have a dispute with your attorney, have you taken this matter to the State Bar Association? Have you filed a complaint with the State Bar? Mr. Shea: I have filed a complaint, sir. Yes, I have. Because it is completely unnecessary, does not show any type of professionalism whatsoever. Clearly not amused. Governor: Any further comments from the other Board members? Attorney General: Governor, this is Catherine. So let me just tell you my dilemma here. Theres no doubt that there was a hearing and Mr. Shea and his attorney were there. And right along with having that hearing, the hearing board of that was then sent January 25, 2012, along with that was a (inaudible) order where the hearing officer recognized that she did not consider a particular issue, so she then invited the parties to submit any arguments with regard to that particular issue in writing, and that also is dated January 25. By February 16, not receiving anything, the hearing officer then issued another order saying we havent received anything with response to that second issue, if I dont receive anything, I am going to dismiss that second issue on March 3, 2012. So on April 10, then this order is filed again saying that she hasnt received anything and feels that the second issue has been abandoned by the parties and shes going to dismiss it.
Now, Ill give Mr. Shea the benefit of the doubt that he was relying on his attorney, but during that course of time I guess Im concerned that I didnt hear Mr. Shea saying that he was either trying to contact his attorney to figure out what was going on with his case and/or contacting the Victims of Crime during this period of time explaining to them that he was having problems with his attorney. So Im kind of confused about that, because at some point in time Mr. Shea realizes that an order is issued and he files a Motion for Reconsideration. Im not sure how he found out about what was going on enough to then file the Motion for Reconsideration. So that is confusing me here. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt that if he was relying on his attorney and the attorney was not communicating with him and fell short of his duties, then, yes, Mr. Shea should have an opportunity to have his case heard. But if he was just as negligent in follow through and knew about it and was not -- not only not following through, but at the same time harassing the staff, which I still am not clear on and would like more information, I do have concerns about letting him come back and have his day hearing with respect to the second issue. I just -- if it is true that he is harassing the staff, he knew well about what was going on and didnt take advantage of his opportunities, and now is come at the 11th hour, I think its too late. But I dont have enough information with the record that is before us to make that determination. Governor: Neither do I. Attorney General: So my suggestion would be if we really need more information that is above and beyond the record, that we continue this, we have a hearing so that we can gather the additional information we are hearing about to make this determination. Governor: And when you -- how much time will it take Ms. Salazar to -- when you say -- let me back up. Madam Attorney General, when you say to hear this, are you saying that -- for the Victims of Crime Program to hold another hearing to develop the record or for that to be before the Board of Examiners? Attorney General: No. Im saying pursuant to NRS 217.117 (inaudible) before us, and we have certain statutory options that we can follow. One of them is within 15 days after this Board meeting we either render a decision on the case or give notice to the applicant that a hearing will be held, and that hearing must be held within 30 days after the notice is given, and the Board will then render its decision after that second hearing. That is the only -- from my understanding, unless theres something else in the statute, that is the only way that we as a Board can gather additional information. Its pursuant to the statutory obligations that we have. And so, you know, short of having a full blown hearing, I would say that we have a hearing so that we can at least gather the additional data thats outside the record to help us make a determination. Governor: I agree. I mean, weve heard a lot of new things today. Theres a lot of contradictory presentations that have been made, and it would be helpful to me in order to reach an informed decision to have those facts presented one way or the other. So Id be agreeable to following the statute and scheduling another hearing so that we can gather that information.
Rebecca Salazar: Governor, this is Rebecca. At the heart of this is the dental issue and whether or not Mr. Shea has the documentation that relates his current needs to the crime. So can we ask Mr. Shea if he has that at this point? Ive never seen any dental -- anything dental other than one letter from a doctor. So thats kind of what weve been waiting for this whole time. So Im wondering if he has that. Thomas Shea: For the record, Thomas Shea. Ive had several dental assessments done. I would count them to be five or six from Scottsdale, Arizona to Pacific Palisades in Southern California, and theyve all been submitted to the Victims of Crimes in the southern district of Las Vegas. Governor: So, Ms. Salazar, I dont know if you could hear Mr. Shea, but he says that hes provided the dental records to your office. It sounds like you havent received them. I think there was underlying issue as to whether the dental treatment related to the crime itself as well. Rebecca Salazar: Right. Okay. I havent received those. Ive received one dated I think 2012, but it didnt clearly relate the current needs to the crime of 2003. So that would be my only hope is if we did hold a hearing at some point that we could see a record of, you know, clearly dating these current needs back to 2003. Governor: All right. Well, then Rebecca Salazar: So that we could pay for them if the claim was sent back to us so that we could even help with the current needs. Governor: So if I hear you right, Ms. Salazar, youre not aware -- or you have one dental record from 2012. Rebecca Salazar: Right. Governor: Youre not aware of, or have not received, the other records that Mr. Shea has represented that hes provided your office. If indeed theyre provided to you, that would give you the opportunity to review them and make a determination as to whether (a) theyre valid and (b) whether theyre related to the crime itself. Rebecca Salazar: Correct. The one from 2012 that I have says that its not clear that its related to the crime of 2003. Governor: So if we continue this matter and ask Mr. Shea to again provide your office with copies of those records, will that give you sufficient time to review them and provide the Board with your findings by the time we hold the hearing? Rebecca Salazar: Yes. Mm-hmm. Yes, sir. Governor: Yes. Is that helpful to you, Madam Attorney General?
Attorney General: Yes. Governor: So we -- what Im hearing from the Attorney General, and I dont know how the Secretary feels on this, is that we will continue this matter pursuant to statute. What are the time deadlines again that were working under? Clerk: Governor, per the statute, the hearing has to be held within 30 days after notice is given that youre going to hold the hearing, and then a decision has to be rendered within 15 days after the hearing. Governor: So how much time between now and when a notice is provided will it be? Clerk: Governor, thats not clear. So it just has to be held within 30 days after you give him notice. Governor: All right. Well, Ms. Salazar, how much time do you need to get all the information that you need so that we can have a hearing to resolve this case once and for all? Rebecca Salazar: I would think 10 or 15 days would be fine. Probably not even that long. Governor: And I -- in my experience on this Board, I dont know if weve ever had a separate hearing aside from the regularly scheduled Board of Examiners meeting. It sounds like theres not enough time between now and the September Board meeting within which to hold the hearing, so perhaps we could schedule the hearing for the Board of Examiners meeting in October. Any objection to that from the Board members? Rebecca Salazar: I dont have an objection, but for me the September meeting would be fine. Octobers fine too. Attorney General: Governor, I dont have a problem with that. The only thing Im going to request is that we make sure that Victims of Crime compensation fund (inaudible) witnesses or evidence to address the harassment issue. Governor: Right. I just dont want any hiccups between now and September. Thats why I was a little more comfortable with the October date. Rebecca Salazar: Thatd be fine. Governor: Okay. Mr. Shea, do you have any objection to continuing this matter to October so that you can have a full hearing to present for the presentation of all the facts and give you an opportunity to provide, if you have not already, Im not disputing whether you did or not, but if you provided the records once, Id respectfully ask that you provide them again to Ms. Salazar, your dental records. And then in the meantime, give Ms. Salazar an opportunity to prepare her presentation. So again, Mr. Shea, do you have any objection to continuing this matter to October?
Thomas Shea: No objections whatever, Governor Sandoval. Sounds great. Governor: And further questions or comments from Board members? Okay. Then the Chair will accept a motion to continue Agenda Item No. 10 until the October meeting of the Board of Examiners. Secretary of State: So moved. Attorney General: Second. Governor: We have a motion by the Secretary of State, a second by the Attorney General. Any questions or discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much, Mr. Shea.
*11.

Thirteen statewide leases were submitted to the Board for review and approval. Clerks Recommendation: I recommend approval. Motion By: Secretary of State Comments: Seconded By: Attorney General Vote: 3-0
Governor: Well move on to Agenda Item No. 11, leases. Clerk: Thank you, Governor. The statewide leases on the Board of Examiners Agenda, there are 13 statewide leases that were submitted for review and approval. Governor: Thank you. I have no questions regarding any of the leases described in Agenda Item No. 11. I do want to make a comment that in Lease No. 13, theres a savings of $331,632.16 over the term of the lease, so kudos to the individuals associated with the negotiation of that lease. Any other questions or comments from Board members? Secretary of State: No, Governor. Governor: The Chair will accept a motion for approval of the leases described in Agenda Item No. 11. Secretary of State: So moved. Attorney General: Second. Governor: The Secretary of State has made a motion to approve the leases described in Agenda Item No. 11. The Attorney General has seconded the motion. Any questions or discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Motion passes unanimously.
*12.
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION CONTRACTS

Seventy- Seven independent contracts were submitted to the Board for review and approval. Clerks Recommendation: I recommend approval. Motion By: Secretary of State Comments: Seconded By: Attorney General Vote: 3-0
Governor: The next item on the Agenda is Agenda Item No. 12, and I want to give the Board members an option. I have many questions on many matters within the contracts. Do you wish to take a break now, or do you want to go ahead and get started with Agenda Item No. 12? Attorney General: Actually if we could take a five-minute break, that would help me, and Ill be right back. Governor: All right. Attorney General: Thank you. Governor: The Board of Examiners will be in recess until 15 minutes to the hour. Thank you. Call the meeting back to order, please. We will proceed with Agenda Item No. 12, contracts. Ms. Day. Clerk: Thank you. There are 77 independent contracts that were submitted for Board of Examiners approval and -- review and approval this morning. Governor: Thank you. I have a few hold outs. Ill start with Contracts 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 -- are we pulling 10 off the Agenda? Thats the arbitrage. Clerk: Yes, 10 was denied in the last motion. Governor: Then move on to 22, 23, 24, 26, 30, 32, 38, 43, 66, 67 all the way through 73, I just have questions on these Nevada Works Workforce Connections contracts, and 75 and 76. Madam Attorney General, Mr. Secretary of State, do you have any other contracts you wanted to hold out? Secretary of State: Contract 74. Attorney General: No, Governor. Governor: Alrighty. Then well begin with 5 and 7. And my only question on those two, are they with the same individual? And I was wondering why we had to do two separate contracts with the same individual. Nancy Bowman: Good morning, Governor, Board members. Nancy Bowman, for the record. Im the Tort Manager for the Attorney Generals office. Mr. Bates is an ombudsmen for the
Department of Corrections. Tries to settle inmate mediations early on. The second one, number 7 is an amendment. That increases the funding -- his original contract was set to expire June 30, and we were doing new contracts. We were required -- the state purchasing requested that we do a solicitation for these services, so with the new contract, instead of extending the existing contract out for an additional two years, we did a solicitation labor to start a new contract process. So Item No. 5 is the new contract effective September 1, and the amendment is Item No. 7, and thats just to get the current contract out until the new contract starts. Governor: So hell be performing the same function for both contracts? Nancy Bowman: That is correct. Governor: All right. Thats all I had. Thank you. Nancy Bowman: Thank you. Governor: Agenda Item No. 8, which is the contract with the Glen Group. Are you going to handle that, Mr. Secretary? Secretary of State: Governor, I can probably address the bulk of the questions. If theres anything related to the RFP process, I do have some staff here that could address that also. Governor: No. No questions regarding the RFP process. I was just looking -- we didnt -- I didnt get a copy of the media plan until late, but essentially what the functions are going to be performed by the Glen Group and the purpose of contract. Secretary of State: The purpose of the contract is to do an educational awareness campaign around voter registration, most specifically about the new online voter registration system that were offering which was part of a pilot program in 2010 in Clark County only, but will be available statewide for this election. Nevada is seeing about less than ten percent of all registrations currently using the online voter registration. Compared with other states that had implemented that, thats relatively low. Arizona has about 63 percent usage in 2010. Washington had 55 percent. There are ten states now implementing it and there are a number of benefits that come with the online voter registration system. Its cleaner and easier to administer for the clerks. It helps us clean up our voter rolls. It reduces the dependence on third party groups including the political parties and some of the out-of-state groups which is going to be increasingly prominent this election. We have had some problems with voter registration fraud that had brought us some unwanted national attention, and so this is a much more secure system. In order to use it, you have to have a drivers license or a DMV issued ID card. We want to get that message out there. You can now register online and doing so requires only five easy steps, so we want to encourage usage of it, and youll be immediately registered. It also allows us to verify the information immediately, which is a big step and creates a much more secure system. So the contract is the contract with an advertising firm that will help us get that message out there through paid media.
Governor: And its all going to be performed essentially within six weeks? Whats the deadline to register to vote? Secretary of State: The voter registration deadline is October 6 in order to access the online system. In truth its going to be tough to afford any advertising after that date as we get closer to the election and were certainly paying a premium this cycle because of some of the outside groups coming in, but it would be focused around voter registration month which is September. Governor: And will it be via television, radio? What are the Secretary of State: Weve had some initial discussions, although obviously nothing finalized contingent upon the approval of this contract, but the Glen Group is recommending it would pursue a strategy thats heavily based on online advertising to focus on the online registration, TV, and then some outdoor media as well. Governor: Are there any target groups or is this kind of a blast to get all those that arent registered to register? Secretary of State: The primary target age is 24 to I believe 44 year olds, with a secondary target age that expands a little bit, 18 to 24, and 44 to -- I think they add another six years or so. They looked at the demographics of the number of registered voters and the number of people that are eligible to register to vote and compared that with census data to find out where we could potentially move the needle the most, and so thats how they arrived at that target group. Governor: And so they wont be actually registering voters, theyll just be soliciting people to register online? Secretary of State: Correct. Theyll put together the media plan and help drive the awareness strategies so that people are aware that this new tool is out there. Governor: Okay. I have no further questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Next is Agenda Item No. 9, the contract with Hamilton Lane and the Treasurers office. Good morning. Or afternoon, almost afternoon. Mark Mathers: Mark Mathers, Chief Deputy Treasurer. Governor: Thank you, Mr. Mathers. I got an updated -- or some updated information because I did have a question whether there was an RFP process, but there were several entities that bid for this contract. Mark Mathers: Yes. We distributed the RFP to more than 25 firms, and we received 12 proposals back. Governor: And when -- if you could go into a little more specific on how theyre going to be paid and, you know, I know this is an outgrowth of SB 75, and its an opportunity for -- to use some dollars to invest in state firms and what have you. So how will Hamilton Lane be paid?
Mark Mathers: There are two components to their fee, and I guess I would recognize the dollar amount you see is pretty daunting. The first component of their fee is a management fee, and so this would be analogous to an expense ratio for a mutual fund you or I might buy. And so thats the only fee that guaranteed. That fee starts at one percent of committee capital and decreases ten percent a year after the commitment period. And so the management fee is estimated at roughly $3.5 million over the ten-year program, so it averages to 350,000 a year, which computes to an expense ratio of .7 percent or 70 basis points, which is very reasonable, very low if you consider probably the median expense ratio for an actively managed public equity mutual fund is closer to 100 basis points. So very reasonable management fee. Its just over ten years that theyre paid. The second component to their fee is whats called carried interest or carry, and this is their share of the profits from any returns they make, and we estimated here 3 million or so, 3.14 million of carry that they would receive. Again, this is their share of the profits, so they have to generate a positive return, and wed have to be reimbursed our management fee before they share in any of the remaining proceeds, and those are split 90 percent to the state, 10 percent to Hamilton Lane. Governor: And I havent done the math. What are you estimating their performance is going to be? Mark Mathers: This is based on an estimate of a net internal rate of return of 9.75 percent. So close to ten percent return, which far exceeds what were earning on this portfolio which is closer to one percent. Governor: And the length of the contract, 10 years and 15 days, thats a long time. Mark Mathers: It is a long time. Its the usual -- ten years is kind of the usual and customary term for a private equity investment. In a structure like this, private equity is different than public equity in that were not necessarily flipping companies. Were taking companies, start-up companies or smaller companies, that are growing, we will take an equity position in those companies in return for our capital, and help grow them and nurture them. So Hamilton Lane most likely will set on the board of directors of that company, mentor them, help them grow, provide access to other capital and markets, and then allow that company to grow over time, so a ten-year period is the normal period. Governor: So we wont expect to see returns for some time, because youve got to give these companies an opportunity to be successful. Mark Mathers: Thats generally true. There may be cases where in a buyout situation a more mature company we invest in that the company could be flipped for a profit. So we might see returns beginning in year two, but, yeah, its a much longer investment horizon than other kinds of assets like fixed income for instance where we have a five-year maturity. So probably between years two and ten well see those returns come in.
Governor: And I dont want to get too far into the policy and make this into a legislative hearing, because weve been through all that, and Ive signed the bill. Mark Mathers: And you signed the bill. Governor: Yes. Understood. So I guess the bottom line is if theres a small company -- if somebody owns a pizza company and this Hamilton Lane sees that theres some potential there, they stake a position in that. Two years from now if its being -- if its wildly successful and, as you say, they can flip it, or if it starts to be profitable, we -- the fund would share in the profits? Mark Mathers: Thats exactly right. Governor: Okay. And what if theyre not performing well? Mark Mathers: If its a co-investment that were making, certainly Hamilton Lane will participate again in the management of the company, and so its not unheard of to replace the management of the company if things arent going well, and thats the reason for the underperformance. If its an underlying fund investment, the underlying fund manager can make those kind of decisions too. Certainly theres an intense screening process that goes on with firms to make sure theres potential there for growth and profitability, and so there are all kinds of strategies these managers use to make sure that happens. Governor: I think youve answered all my questions. Thank you, Mr. Mathers. Any questions from other Board members? Secretary of State: No, Governor. Governor: All right. Thank you. Move on to Contract 22, Commission on Tourism. Nobody here? All right. Ms. Day, my only question there was how do we measure performance on that contract? I mean, this is to induce or to try and increase the amount of visitors from China which is a very fertile market in terms of bringing tourism to the State of Nevada, and I was just curious how they determine whether this entity is performing well. That was going to be my question. Clerk: Thank you. As far as I know, the Commission on Tourism looks at a lot of the data that comes out of their system on different visitors that actually come from those areas. I dont know exactly what all they use. A lot of it is return on investment, but the agency would have to give you specific details. Governor: And as I said, if you could communicate with Ms. Vecchio and get just a paragraph on how they determine how theyre doing. Clerk: Absolutely. Governor: All right. Contract 23, Governors Office of Economic Development. Good morning, Mr. Hill. Good afternoon.
Steve Hill: Good afternoon, Governor, members of the Board. My name is Steve Hill. Im the Director of the Governors Office of Economic Development. We have five contracts before you today. I wasnt sure if you wanted an explanation of all five. I can be very brief. Three of them are, including No. 26, which is the Las Vegas Regional Economic Development Councils contract. Those three are the last three of ten that we have brought before the Board. The prior seven during the last Board of Examiners meeting. The Las Vegas contract is for $1,375,000 which is approximately 50 percent of the grant funding that we have provided to regional development authorities. The reason for the two different meetings for these ten contracts was not really a content issue, it was just a process issue. There was a relatively short timeframe between the deadline for the last meeting and the time that we had to get contracts signed. These three organizations were not able to just get that done in about a weeks period of time. In between the last Board of Examiners meeting and now we had a meeting of the Board of Economic Development at which this Las Vegas contract was discussed. There was some discussion regarding the amount. I think that has been explained, and weve talked about that actually at the last Board of Examiners meeting as well, and Im happy to answer any questions on that. There was also some concern expressed with respect to some of the language in how we were measuring some of the things on who could be involved in the economic development process. That has subsequently been worked through I think to the satisfaction of everyone involved. The Board of Economic Development will take out that contract for approval again on Thursday. My understanding in discussing that with those who have been involved that they are more than satisfied with the resolution of that. Governor: And that was going to be my question, Mr. Hill, with regard to the Las Vegas Regional Economic Development Council is that there were some outstanding questions with regard to the form of the agreement between the state and that entity, and that was it premature to approve this contract today if we hadnt approved to the form of the agreement in the first place between the state and the entity, so Steve Hill: Thank you, Governor. I dont believe its premature, and I think it is important that we approve the contract today because the funding for the development authority is contingent obviously upon approval. I have talked with Mrs. Marin (sp?) who is the Board member who raised the concerns, and also talked with the university system about the issues that were raised as well the Las Vegas Regional Economic Development Council. They have signed that contract obviously, and both Ms. Marin and the folks from NSHE are completely satisfied that the contract is approvable at this point. The other Agenda Item is No. 24 which is a contract between our office and the System of Higher Education. And this is a program that is federally funded. The money originally comes through DETR. DETR sets aside a portion of their career enhancement fund for training for companies that we are trying to incent to either grow or move to Nevada. So this follows the same process as our other incentive process. Originally this is a $500,000 contract with the System of Higher Education, because in one of two ways, the system takes oversight of that training process. They may actually provide the training process through the community colleges or this can be on-the-job training which is overseeing and audited and then signed off on by Nevada Industry Excellence which is a part of the System of Higher Education. So the
contract in total is with NSHE. That may then go directly to community colleges or it may flow through the Nevada Industry Excellence part of that organization. The companies involved with these training funds must match dollars. The grants are typically $1,000 per employee on a maximum, and that is actually the typical amount. But in the case of more technical training, particularly once Nevada Industry of Excellence has looked at what those training requirements are, grants have been made up to about $3,500 per employee, and again thats the federal grant portion. The companies have to match that amount. Happy to answer any questions. Governor: The last one was 23, and I was just curious how we got to this contract with regard to improving an existing business or starting a business within the north Las Vegas area and the special impact zone. Steve Hill: That is a contract that we have had with the Small Business Development Corporation. They provide that service in that area. The city of north Las Vegas is also a participant financially in that grant, but its a program that we have been able to leverage money against. We see a need there and feel it is worthwhile supporting and is very much in line with our economic development efforts. Governor: Thats all I have. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Any other Board member questions? Thank you. Next was Contract 30, Veterans Gift Account, Office of Veteran Services. Kat Miller: Good afternoon, Governor, Board members. Governor: Howdy. Kat Miller: Im Kat Miller, the Deputy Director for the Nevada Office of Veteran Services. Sir, did you have a specific question, or do you just want me to discuss the contract in general? Governor: Yeah. Why dont you turn -- if youd please restate your name for the record. Kat Miller: Yes, sir. Kat Miller, Deputy Director, Nevada Office of Veteran Services. Governor: No. My only question is it seems like a significant amount of money to rebuild a website. Kat Miller: Yeah. I dont like the wording on there, sir. Let me restate what its for. What this contract will do is it will create a social networking platform that will connect our veteran service members and families to services, programs and opportunities. As youre probably aware, theres a sea of good will out there. There are many, many programs aimed at helping our veterans with health issues, educational issues, employment issues. The problem is there is no one single entry point for Nevada veterans, family members and service members to access all of this. So what this will create is that single entry point. It doesnt create many new services and programs. What it does is it creates a delivery system for our veterans to come in. I get calls all the time, as does my boss Caleb Cage from employers for example that say, boy, Id love to hire
a vet, or from folks that will say Id like to contribute to this, or a veteran that says Im not sure how to handle this, and it takes a lot of time. Were backlogged six to eight weeks handling veterans that come into the office that want to handle things on a face-to-face basis. We need to provide better delivery of services and this social network platform will do that for us. Governor: And this entity will continue to provide maintenance and services later on? Kat Miller: It will. The cost, sir, the $340,000, the initial project cost is 250,000, and then annually its 41,000. As we get it developed, as we -- were hoping that that 41 -- correction, 45 K will go down, but for the first two years, its 250,000 for the project cost, and then 45,000 annually for maintenance. Governor: And this is funded through the gift account, so primarily through license plate fees? Kat Miller: Yes, sir. This is from the license plate gift account. Governor: You guys of doing well on the license plates. Kat Miller: Yeah. Im really excited about this one, because this directly takes the mission of the license plate gift account to provide service and outreach to our veterans, and this program will do exactly that. Governor: Yeah. No. Congratulations. I just wanted a few more of the specifics. I think its a great idea and its going to be extremely beneficial to our veterans. Thank you. Any further questions from Board members? Secretary of State: No, Governor. Governor: Thank you. I hope your knees okay. Kat Miller: (Inaudible) ski instructor. Governor: The next contract is 32, Health and Human Services. Lynn OMara: For the record, Lynn OMara, State Health IT Coordinator, Department of Health and Human Services. Governor, did you have some specific questions? Governor: Just I was curious when I looked at this the connection between the Northern Nevada Development Agency and Health and Human Services. Lynn OMara: Interesting. Its been an interesting development, actually exciting. Under our stimulus grant that we have to establish health information exchange throughout the state, we are required both by our state plan thats been approved, and also by requirements under that grant to have a governing entity that will oversee the statewide infrastructure that was established under Senate Bill 43 during the last session. That bill allows the Director of DHHS to establish that non-profit entity. We dont normally do that, so we -- NNDA has been very, very supportive of
all of the both, Im going to say, the health information exchange effort, as well as getting electronic health records adopted statewide. And when we were working with them, they have a lot of experience establishing new businesses, and this is going to be a non-profit. Our biggest concern is we need to assistance and guidance to be sure we meet federal and state regulations for establishing that business, and we also would like to pursue 501(c)(3) status for it. They have expertise to do that, and also to help us to make sure we have the appropriate operating policies and procedures in place, and for the governing body to ensure they have the right kind of bylaws. So thats what theyll be assisting us with. Governor: Great answer. You answered everything. Thank you. Any further questions from Board members. Thank you very much. Move on to Agenda Item No. 38. Good afternoon, Dr. Green, Mr. Chisel. Bill Chisel: Governor, for the record, Bill Chisel, with ASO with MHDS, Dr. Green, the State Medical Director, and Robin Aker (sp?), the ASO at MHDS too. Is there any specific questions you have on this contract? Governor: Just the amount. You know, I understand that weve eliminate one and a half positions to pay for this, but a brief foundation as to what this position is and what it will be doing, and then a little more explanation with regard to dollars. Bill Chisel: As far as the dollars, were looking at $300,000 per year, and its up to 2,000 hours of work at $150 an hour. Were looking at $48,000 in travel for the biennium, so the totals going to be about 648,000. And for the biennium were looking at around $19,000 in savings by freezing those -- that position and a half. As far as what their specific -- the position is specifically going to be doing, Ill have to defer to Dr. Green. Dr. Tracey Green: For the record, Dr. Tracey Green, Medical Director for Mental Health and Developmental Services, (inaudible) Health Officer. Good afternoon, Governor. This role will primarily be doing a number of things. First of all, on a statewide basis, with the two hospitals, we do have CMS or Medicare licensing requirements for psychiatric medical directorship. In the past weve had quite difficultly recruiting that position in the north, and weve had a lot of instability in the position, and I think this was also reflected by our inadequate workforce as a whole from the specialty departments. So this position will represent our CMS licensed position in both the north and south hospitals. In addition, the position is responsible for oversight of physician time, as well as developing policies surrounding attendance and productivity, working with me in the integrated part of this as well and also doing recruitment and residency work. So it will be fairly comprehensive and I really see us moving forward with a statewide role for many of our medical leaders. And, in addition, I think that, you know, from a life safety issue, it will give us stability in our statewide hospitals so that we arent continually looking for contracting and/or locum positions. Governor: And so this individual will hold -- remember, we had a historic problem with accountability and such, so this person will have the responsibility to ensure that everyones doing what theyre supposed to do.
Dr. Tracey Green: For the regard, Dr. Green. Absolutely. In fact, in her previous role when she was doing some of the medical leadership at Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health, she was responsible for reviewing and doing any disciplinary or any communication with physicians at the time, and if there were any further issues we did them together. So this would be a statewide approach to develop standardization. Governor: Thats all I have. Thank you very much. Questions from other Board members? Thank you. Contract 43, which is Division of Child and Family Services and University. Mike Torvinen: Hi, Governor, members of the Board. Mike Torvinen, Deputy Director for DHHS. Governor: Thank you, Mr. Torvinen. Just as more of a curiosity than a question, but were spending $1.8 million for a training program to train child welfare workers regarding child welfare processes, statutes and regulations. So is this continuing ed? I mean, or is it part of the curriculum for the university? Mike Torvinen: My understanding is its the same exact contract we approved last time for UNLV. So its both, I think. Its for new staff and -- I think Im getting an email, but its for new staff and existing staff, and I think as Amber Howell described to me, its kind of a police academy for the child welfare workers. So it is both ongoing and new staff. Governor: So if Im graduating from the university and Im getting my degree in social work, this is, as you say, kind of a boot camp to provide additional training for these individuals, and then if Ive been a social worker, I can come back here and get up to date on what I need to do or with regard to my responsibilities as a social worker? Mike Torvinen: I believe thats a good description and thats pretty much what Amber described to me also. So once you come out of school with your degree, you really dont have the nuts and bolts of how to deal -- how to go right to work in the child welfare system, so youre educated as a social worker, but there are some nuances in the child welfare system that theyre educating people on. Governor: Thats all I have. Thank you, Mr. Torvinen. Mike Torvinen: Thank you. Governor: The next contracts that I have questions are essentially the series of contracts between DETR and the Board of Regents, Nevada Works and Workforce Connection. Good afternoon. Will you provide your names for the record, please? Lynda Parven: Good afternoon, Lynda Parven, Deputy Administrator for the Employment Security Division within DETR. Grant Nielson: Grant Nielson, EFC Program Chief for DETR.
Governor: With regard to 66 and 67, I asked this at a previous meeting, but this is to provide funds to CSNs apprenticeship program, but it says electrical, plumbing and carpentry, and I guess my question is, is we have a lot a unemployed electricians, plumbers and carpenters already. Are we training more people to come into an area where theres already a big amount of workforce that exists? Grant Nielson: Were going to get some additional information. Dennis Correa: Good afternoon, Governor, members of the Board. The apprenticeship program is training in those specific traits. It was a program that came over from the Department of Education in the last legislature where you were using Workforce Investment Act Governors reserve dollars to fund that program, but they are training those specific fields. Governor: So theres no flexibility? Like I said, Im concerned because our highest unemployment rate is in construction already, and if youve -- youre training more people to come to compete with those there are already unemployed, are we serving a good policy? Dennis Correa: I believe that is correct, that we are training people in the education field in those apprenticeship programs. Its been an ongoing program I think that has just continued year after year. Governor: So theres no flexibility in these funds to say if we have another need in a different area to direct it that way? Dennis Correa: Not as its currently designed, no. Governor: So were looking at almost $450,000 Dennis Correa: Just as a side note, this program was funded through Governors Reserve dollars, and there were some carry forward dollars to cover that, but Governors Reserve has been eliminated. We do not know if were going to receive those funds in the future. So for the program to continue past the current biennium, we need to identify other sources of income or whether its priority. Governor: And do we -- since weve been doing this, historically, do we have any idea of how many of the people that were trained are getting placed? Dennis Correa: Actually, its one of the problems that weve had since weve taken over the program is since its funded with federal dollars, weve asked for more reporting on this program and weve had a difficult time, because in the past it was pretty much just a transfer of funds. We dont have that information, but we have just recently discussed with CSN setting up training to let them know what the expectation on that reporting is. Governor: Because, you know, I dont know if I want to describe it as a dilemma, but a concern is, you know, I dont want to eliminate the ability for somebody to get trained in a skill or in an
apprenticeship program, but at the same time, are we doing them any good if we get them trained as a plumber or an electrician or carpenter and they have to get in line behind all those that are already arent working, or competing with those that are in the unemployment line? Dennis Correa: It is a bit inconsistent with the direction that were going to provide training in the eight identified sectors. Governor: And what if we -- this is I guess federal funds, so if we werent to approve this, I mean, it really wouldnt -- all it would do is harm those that are seeking to get this type of training, correct? Dennis Correa: Or we would have to shift those priorities to fund something else. Governor: So this would -- if we werent to approve it today, it would give us -- give you a little bit more discretion in terms of how those dollars are spent? I mean, again, I dont want to harm anyone at the university system, I dont want to harm someone whos participating in this, but when you look at the policy, I dont know if were moving the ball forward, if were training people in areas that we dont really -- we dont have a need. Dennis Correa: Id have to -- I wanted to qualify it by trying to figure out what the age of the money is that were using to fund it to make sure that we could actually expend that money before it ages out, but I believe the answer is yes, that that money could be allocated in other directions. Governor: That could be -- I mean, is that something that you would oppose? I mean, how would you feel about that? Dennis Correa: I, you know, as a policy decision, we dont have enough money to do all the training that we want to do in all the places that we want to do it, so its just picking the priorities of where to allocate those training funds. Governor: Well, for instance, and I apologize, Im just thinking out loud asking these questions, but we have a need in the healthcare field and if we have -- we dont have enough money in that area, wouldnt it be a better policy or wouldnt it be more prudent to move this money to an area where theres more of a need? Dennis Correa: We have done limited funding -- were actually moving forward with some limited funding on the healthcare sector as it pertains to electronic medical records. It isnt funded at the level that it may should be. Governor: Yeah. And Im not trying to be critical. I just want to make sure that we spend this money the best possible way that we can. You live this every day, and Im really going to rely on you in terms of what is the best use of these dollars instead of, you know, just approving a contract because weve always done it. We have very limited money, and we have a huge need, and I want to make sure that were spending those dollars the best possible way that we can.
Dennis Correa: Not to stumble on it too much, I do believe that there may be higher priorities than this. I dont know that the College of Southern Nevada has had in the south and community colleges in the north had a successful program in the past to say that thats where we should be allocating our money now. If youre asking for my professional opinion, I would say that there may be other pressing priorities. Governor: Would it be prejudicial to continue at least these two contracts to give you an opportunity instead of off the cuff having to answer these questions to be able to see if there is a better use of this money? Dennis Correa: I do believe that as were going through the budget process now, we know that were going to have resource problems. Our resources are going to go down, not up in the next biennium, so as we lay out the path for the next biennium, I think wed have to reevaluate this one as whether its a priority of the administration or not. Governor: But if I -- Im going to speak for myself. If I were not to be supportive of at least this money going in this direction and we were to continue this, would you lose these dollars, or would you be able to reprogram them? Dennis Correa: I dont believe so. I believe that theres enough age left on these dollars to redirect those funds. Governor: Okay. Board members, do you have any questions or comments on at least 66 and 67? Secretary of State: So first off, could you identify yourself for the record? Dennis Correa: Im sorry. Dennis Correa, Deputy Director for the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation. Secretary of State: And suppose if there were better priorities for these dollars to be used, why would these contracts (inaudible) forward? Dennis Correa: This program was brought to DETR during the last budget talks. This program had been funded under general fund dollars previous to this biennium, and the decision was made during the budget process to bring those over to DETR so that they could be covered with federal dollars to take pressure off general fund. It was in the budget and thats why we went forward with it since it was approved. Secretary of State: Okay. Governor: So does this cause any, I mean, there are -- youre going to have to go back before IFC, or can you do that -- do all this internally? Dennis Correa: I believe we would have to go back in front of IFC with a program to establish to move the authority.
Governor: Well, what -- and again, I -- these are all questions that you werent expecting. What Id like to do is take these off the Agenda or continue them so that you can have an opportunity to really dig in and see what can be done with the money. As I said, Im just really concerned with moving it in a place where its not needed, and Id much rather benefit folks where theres a need in the state and theres more opportunity to get employment rather than to train them to do something that theres not a job for them to do. So Im only speaking for myself. I wanted to ask the -- or seek the input of the other Board members. Secretary of State: You know, hes represented I think -- I would be in agreement. I mean, hes represented that he thinks theres age enough on the dollars to be able to repurpose them, and there doesnt seem to be immediate fire, so it seems like we would benefit from some more time to get some of these answers. Governor: Madam Attorney General, did you have any comment? Attorney General: No, Governor. If you -- Im hearing 66 and 67 you want to pull and hold for the next meeting so you can get more information; is that correct? Governor: Yes. And as I said Attorney General: Okay. Yeah. No. I dont have a problem with that. Governor: All right. And then, Mr. Correa, with regard to this series of contracts with Nevada Works and Workforce Connections, could you provide a little more detail? And theres an explanation on each one that there was a misunderstanding in the use of subgrant documents versus interlocal contracts which caused a delay in the preparation of a contract, and also historically you know theres been an issue with regard to the performance of Workforce Connections and Nevada Works. And theres a lot of money involved here in these contracts. And are you confident that if these contracts were to be approved that the dollars would be spent wisely? Dennis Correa: I believe that particularly in the south where we had the largest amount of concerns that they have moved swiftly to try to get their economic house in order. Whether -- I would say that Im not real happy with the strategic direction that theyve taken with their funds lately, and theres been more of a push to push them out on the street then to strategically target them. But at least theyre moving the money forward which is an improvement over what was happening in previous years. Less is being spent on administrative costs now than there were. The Directors and my opinion is is that its still too high. Theyre budgeting it about 20 percent of the funds being held at the Board level for Board expenses. Were in the process of talking about ways to limit that even further. Governor: So if theres a concern with regard to how the money is being spent at least with Workforce Connections, but do you have to release these dollars? Is that the issue that we have today?
Dennis Correa: Its a -- within the federal statute theres a formula that has to be followed, and because there are only two workforce investment areas within the state, we have to release them through that formula and then monitor their progress as it goes. Governor: So I guess that bring me to the next question. What type of accountability and monitoring is there going to be? Dennis Correa: We monitor (inaudible) basis for appropriate use of -- fiscal use of the funds as well as their performance. And their performance is tracked depending on the funding stream, but primarily its around employment, retention and employment, and wages. Governor: Were talking about $19 million or -- I cant do all the math because theres too many commas, but as I said, were -- weve had an issue it sounds like, I mean, there was an audit, it didnt go well. It sounds like there hasnt been much improvement even though we had the findings of that audit in terms of that, but so where are we in that whole process, in terms of trying to straighten things out? Dennis Correa: Just recently with both Boards, there has been change over in leadership. We do believe that the new Executive Director down in the south is moving to tighten up accountability and to fix these problems. Based off of the history of the problems year after year after year Im a bit guarded in what the result will be. But we do believe that theyre moving in the right direction, maybe not quick enough. Governor: So is there no longer going to be a consolidation of the Board into one statewide Board? Dennis Correa: We have submitted a waiver to the Department of Labor asking to move in that direction. We expect an answer within the next month. Governor: All right. Dennis Correa: If I may just qualify one part. When we do the monitoring of these Boards, on program and financial side, were looking at allowability under that, but not reasonability and theres just Governor: So what did you mean by allowability versus reasonability? Dennis Correa: When we go in, we look to see if the expenditures and the way that theyre spending their money are allowable under the act. Ive always had a real problem with the reasonableness of that at times, and we do have an oversight role there as well to make sure that theyre being reasonable with those funds as well, but most of the time the monitoring is limited to allowability under the act. Governor: So you dont have any kind of stick -- once this money is -- once we approve all these contracts, the money goes, and as long as theyre allowable, they can spend as much as they want essentially.
Dennis Correa: And if it purports to some degree with the state plan, that is correct. Governor: But again, as we sit here today, we need to approve these contracts to get the money out because at the end of the day we need to help people, but I just wanted -- Ive said this before, I want to make sure as many possible dollars get to the people that actually need it than having it all eaten up with administrative fees. Dennis Correa: We would agree. Governor: All right. Any questions from the other Board members? Secretary of State: No, Governor. Governor: Thank you very much. Just a moment. I believe the Secretary of State had held out Contract 74. Secretary of State: Yes. Dave Haws: Good afternoon. For the record, Dave Haws. Im the IT division add minute traitor for DETR and also function as the Project Manager for the (inaudible) Modernization Project. Id be happy to answer any questions you have. Secretary of State: Thank you, Mr. Haws. I note that this is the fourth amendment to the original contract. Could you just give us a brief history of how weve gotten to so many amendments, what the nature of the current requirement for an amendment is, and whether or not you anticipate any additional amendments to this contract? Dave Haws: Certainly. I would be happy to answer that. The (inaudible) Modernization Project is a fairly large project, in the neighborhood of $30 million. Its an IT contract as well, very complex. We are replacing all of our Legacy applications, 30-year-old Legacy applications with new products that will help us to perform better, be more efficient, watch over payments more closely. I believe the first amendment was actually when you start up the contract, its a process of verifying the schedule and the amounts and the fixed fee deliverables. So that was the first amendment that was put into place. Then we amended the contract again to -- Im trying to remember this from memory, but we amended the contract to include dollars for helping to accelerate the reduction of overpayments within the application, and it was the intent to try to implement a portion of the system earlier in order to help us be able to detect overpayments more succinctly. As we got into that particular amendment, what we discovered was that it required us to interface between our Legacy application and the new application, and that it was infeasible to keep the two systems completely in sync. And so while we have taken steps to put into place roles and procedures to help reduce and detect improper payments, we werent able to hook the two systems up in that fashion that we had originally desired. We then received -- Im trying to remember the third amendment. Maybe Linda Deloach (sp?), I dont know if you have that information off the top of your head, but shes been helping there.
But this last amendment is a result of additional federal dollars that had been made available to implement additional federal interfaces into the new application. In particular, well be implementing the (inaudible) interface which is a separation of employees from employers, type information to help determine when, you know, an employee leaves an employer so that we know whether or not there may be a potential claim there, that type of thing. Were also looking to implement the UC Tops interface which allows us to be able to put a lien if you will on federal tax refunds for situations where we may have had overpayments resulting from, you know, either fraud or misinformation. So there was approximately $2 million were provided in federal grant funds recently to put those interfaces into place. And since they will be very closely connected into the application and the data will flow into the new modernization application, were putting dollars into this contract in order to have the vendor complete that task. So thats kind of a brief history of what weve been doing there. Will there be additional amendments? You know, Id like to say that there wouldnt be at this point. Were -- this amendment, one of the key elements of this particular amendment is that were moving from a December end of this calendar year implementation to a May timeframe of the following year. And the reason for that is that the end of year UI processing is our peak processing period for unemployment insurance benefits. And it was just -- we felt that the number of people that we needed to train, you know, 400 employees that need to be trained, cut over to the new application, start all the new procedures, right when we were doing peak business processing probably wasnt in our best interest. Additionally, we wanted to do a little better job of outreach to our UI constituents to make sure that they are aware of the changes that are coming as far as how to, you know, submit a claim, how to submit their wage reports and so on. So this shift will do several things for us. One, it will avoid having to do this cut over right in the middle of a peak processing period. It provides us an opportunity to do further data cleansing of 30 years worth of Legacy data thats out there. We also are looking for the vendor to help us to implement more security measures. While we did purchase some significant security modules, there are additional features and functions that we would like to implement as a result of that and so were asking them to help us out there. So the combination of moving the date, asking for more services to help out with the conversion, provide some additional training to help implement these federal interfaces, thats what causing this particular amendment. Secretary of State: Do you recall when the contract was first approved when the scheduled launch date was to occur? Dave Haws: You mean the final launch date? Secretary of State: The original launch date prior to all the contract amendments and delays? Dave Haws: I think we were still aiming for a December 2013 timeframe. Secretary of State: So it hasnt affected substantially the timeline? Dave Haws: No. There was a -- there was to be an interim interface, so weve implemented release 1A, which was to bring up imaging, and that application is in place, and, you know,
were processing all our documents by electronic images now. There was to then be an interim release and thats the release that we had to forgo because there was just no one to keep the two systems in sync and keep the Legacy application stable. Secretary of State: Sure. Thank you. Governor: Madam Attorney General, do you have any questions? Attorney General: No, I dont. Governor: Are you satisfied, Mr. Secretary? Secretary of State: Yes, Governor. Governor: Thank you very much. Okay. Well move on to 75 and 76, Silver State Health Exchange. Good afternoon. Jon Hager: Good morning, Governor. Governor: Mr. Hager, if youd just state your name for the record. Jon Hager: For the record, Jon Hager, Executive Director of the Silver State Health Insurance Exchange. To my right is Shawna DeRousse, our Chief Operating Officer for the Exchange. I could either provide you a summary of the issued contracts, or take any questions. However youd like to proceed, sir. Governor: Will you first provide a summary? I think that would be beneficial. Jon Hager: Absolutely. So the Silver State Health Insurance Exchange is set up in statute NRS 695(i) to provide a marketplace for health insurance for those citizens of Nevada that are either uninsured or underinsured. To do that, we require a web portal, a business operation solution. So the contract with the Xerox Healthcare LLC, which is the second of the two contracts, is to provide us with, again, a business operation solution. It provides a web portal, (inaudible) navigator, a shop exchange, a small business exchange, as well as the financial management functions to collect premiums from individuals and employers and provide those to -- distribute those to the insurers. It also provides a call center. And so all of the functions of the Exchange, or many of the business functions of the Exchange are contracted -- are included in this contract. The first contract on the list is with Public Consulting Group for design -- excuse me, for internal verification and validation. Its a contract that is required with any federally-funded IT project. And so that contract goes hand-in-hand with the Voss (sp?) contract. I do need to make note of one correction of the summary page for the (inaudible) contract, the funding is -- it is 99.44 percent federally funded, and .56 with a general fund match. It comes out to $8,506 for the state general Governor: (Inaudible).
Jon Hager: $8,506 for the state general fund and I apologize for that error. The Business Operations Solution contract has the same cost allocation for the design, development and implementation. The total for the design, development and implementation, which will take us through the next calendar year through 2013, is approximately $9.8 million, and there is about $250,000 in change orders in the contract just in case we have to use that. We hope to not have to use that. We think that our requirements are sound, but its there just in case. And the remainder of the contract is maintenance and operating phase for 2014, 2015 and 2016. So the contract is a four-and-a-half year contract, one-and-a-half years of design development and implementation, and that is the period which PCG will do the independent verification and validation. Once that piece is over, we go into the maintenance phase for three years, again 2014, 15, and 16, so this contract is set to expire December of 2016. Governor: Thats 75 and Jon Hager: Yes, sir. Governor: Okay. Is that your presentation? Jon Hager: For now, sir, yes. Governor: All right. And I guess the first -- I have many, many questions, but the amount, $71,963,299 over four years and 184 days seems like a huge amount of money. Jon Hager: Yes, sir, it absolutely does. For the record, Jon Hager. So the -- when we were looking at these bids, we were shocked by the prices at first, and I spent several sleepless nights trying to understand where we were in this process and what we needed to do for this RFP process. I will say the RFP committee consisted of upper level management at the Enterprise IT Solutions, Welfare, the Exchange, and the Division of Insurance. It was a well-rounded committee. We were all concerned by the costs and I spent the next two days after that initial evaluation reaching out to other states and trying to determine what is a realistic price. What we found is the State of Washington paid about $57 million for their implementation only. We found that the non-ACA exchange in Florida has approximately $40 million in fixed costs. The exchange in Colorado I believe is about the same amount for design, development and implementation. The Massachusetts exchange spent $90 million to upgrade their system from the current system to the ACA complaint exchange. So while it didnt make me feel any better about having to approach this body and the IFC when we go forward with all of these items, it did help me get a better handle on how much these projects cost. I do expect that the projects will remain pretty expensive for other states for the next year or so, and they will gradually start to go down in cost so that when we get to 2015 when we need to renegotiate this contract for an extension, or go out to bid again, that the cost should hopefully come down because the technology has promulgated at that point. Governor: Okay. And Im going to get into some of the other states, but just curiously, Florida is one of those states that said were not doing it. Were not going to participate in ACA and
were not doing exchange -- were not doing an ACA exchange. So when you say a non-ACA exchange, Florida is building its own state exchange, is that what you mean? Jon Hager: Yes, sir. They are building a state exchange. From my understanding -- my understanding is the same as yours. Theyve indicated they are not complying with the ACA, or they are opting for a federally facilitated exchange. However, they are setting up an exchange in Florida for some of their citizens. Its a very narrow scope exchange, but, yes, they are creating a state exchange. Governor: Let me make sure I clear the record, because I havent made a decision whether were opting in or out. Jon Hager: Yes, sir. I understand. Governor: But in any event, lets -- now that were on the money side of this, because I do want to get into some of the policy issues and some of the other states are doing this, some are not, but, I mean, as a fundamental precept, the ACA requires a state to have an exchange. As a policy decision, this state developed a bill, and passed a bill, and I signed the bill that established a state exchange. If we dont do it, if we didnt do it, the feds would do it for us; is that correct? Jon Hager: Yes, sir. Governor: So essentially the choice was we could do nothing like some states have done Jon Hager: Yes, sir. Governor: and the federal government will come in and build an exchange for us and then send us the bill. Is that accurate? Jon Hager: Yes, sir. So we dont know yet what a federally facilitated exchange looks like. None of the creation of that exchange has been in public, very contrary to what weve been doing here in Nevada with 31 publically noticed meetings since the Board was assigned. We know that there will be a few for the use of the exchange. We dont know how much it is. We dont know who it will charge, whether it will the state, whether it will be carriers, consumers, we dont know anything about how that will work. I imagine it will be -- the fees will be pretty low in 2014 because of the funding for the Affordable Care Act, just as our fees to carriers, if thats how we choose to go forward would be low in 2014, but then it would go up in 2015, and we dont know how much that will be. Governor: And again, that policy decision has been made by the legislature and me signing that bill to have a state exchange. Now, what we didnt know were some of these expenses. Jon Hager: Yes, sir. Governor: And so we as a state, we have to have an exchange to be operational by October 1, 2013.
Jon Hager: Yes, sir. Governor: And if we do not, again, the state -- or the federal government comes in and does it for us. Jon Hager: Correct. Governor: And then I, you know, someone gave this to me and Paul Dioguardi who is the Direction of Intergovernmental and External Affairs for U.S. Health and Human Services, he says, if you prefer having certain decisions at the state level which often states do prefer, then youd want to go with the state-based exchange. If you would prefer to cede that authority to the federal government for whatever reason, then thats a decision youve got to make. That to me is a pretty clear statement that the federal government intends to go in those states that dont have their own state exchange to make their own. Jon Hager: Yes, sir. Governor: And then, you know, the unknown there is, as you say, is what that amount would be. I would imagine that it would be similar if not more than what were approving today, 71 million plus? Jon Hager: So I cant say what theyre going to spend. I would imagine that their development costs are going to be extremely high because its going to be for the whole nation, not just for Nevada, and they have to be able to potentially, or they maybe wont, focus their exchange in various states. Obviously our concern is they create a federal exchange thats generic for the whole county and it doesnt specifically serve the needs of Nevadans. So, yes, it could potentially be a lot more expensive. We dont know what the maintenance and operating costs will be. It could be less. But we could set up the exchange as we see fit in Nevada, and if we determine later that it is more cost effective to go with that federally facilitated exchange once we have that information, then we could do that as well. Right now, like I said, 99 percent of our funding is coming from the Affordable Care Act. Theres a small general fund match, but most of it is coming from the Affordable Care Act. Ive got a bullet list of the things that we give up if we go with the federally facilitated exchange if youd like to hear those as well. Governor: No. I would like to hear those, but just to seize on one comment you made is that we dont know what its going to look like because right now theres some building somewhere in Washington where theyre trying to develop the policy for this and theyre not letting anybody know what its going to look like, any of the states? Jon Hager: Yes, sir. In fact, when we were in Washington D.C. about a month ago for one of our required gate review processes for our grants, we were in there providing information on what the Nevada exchange is going to look like, at least the direction that it appears were going, and there were individuals from the federal government in there taking notes furiously about, you know, well, thats a good idea for our exchange. So we dont know. It could be modeled
after the Nevada exchange, but, yes, youre correct. We have no idea what its going to look like. Governor: And just a side comment, how could they have any hope of having an exchange in place by October 1, 2013, if sitting here today, at least from your observations, they dont know what theyre going to do? Jon Hager: It will certainly be a challenge for them. The one thing that they have going for them is that theyre not doing it in public and so they are not going through all of the steps that we are doing to vet each of our decisions. Thats probably not a good thing, because they dont get the input that they need, and maybe they are getting input and we just dont know about it, and maybe theyre getting off channel, but when you dont have that public process, that transparency is a lot easier to push things through. So they certainly have the ability to get it done. It will be a challenge for them. I understand that theyre basically the same process that were at. Theyve named some vendors that theyve chosen to implement this, and I dont remember who they are but -- CGI was one of them. So theyre basically at about the same point we are. Theyve got a much bigger project to take care of, but I think because theyre not doing it in the public it makes it a lot easier for them. That said, I appreciate that weve got the public process here so that we can make sure that each of our decisions are vetted in public and are the right decisions for all of our stakeholders. Governor: Why dont you go through you list if you would, please. Jon Hager: Okay. So some of the reasons to do a Nevada state-based exchange rather than a federally-funded exchange, include that -- so we determine the rules around participation in the Navigator program. We determine whether or not to allow brokers to sell products in the exchange. We can set up our own web portal with potential links to businesses in Nevada, rather than some product that the feds provide. Our shop exchange for small employers will be designed to allow the greatest flexibility possible to allow Nevada insurers to meet the demand of the Nevada employers, including participation and contribution requirements. We can determine whether we want all insurers to participate in the exchange, or if we just want a few to be basically a free market facilitator or a selective purchaser. We determine accreditation standards for our insurance plans, network adequacy, service areas, transition of care standards. We determine how were going to fund the exchange. We control the message. We tailor the message for Nevadans for our marketing outreach campaign. This process allows the Division of Insurance and the Department of Health and Human Services to collaborate in the exchange process. One important part of our statute NRS 695(i).520 says that the exchange shall not supersede the authority of the Commissioner of Insurance. We have no ability to control what the federal exchange does with the ability of the Commissioner to regulate insurance. And our Nevada exchange will create jobs in Nevada. We have -- the Xerox Solution has a call center in Las Vegas that we expect to be utilizing for that, and they are bringing some of their -- and I believe some of the programming for the design phase will be done in Nevada as well. Governor: And with regard to funding, theres a comment in your memo of July 9, 2012 that federal funding for the implementation and first year of operations through December 14 has
been requested but not yet awarded, and you had expected an answer on or about August 15, 2012. Jon Hager: Yes, sir. Governor: Have you received an answer? Jon Hager: We have not. We expect to receive that answer, again, in the next probably two or three days. Were right at the 45 Notice of Award period and so we should get that very soon. That grant award will go before the Interim Finance Committee as a request to be an authority -to allow the Authority to spend that grant money. Governor: Okay. What if we dont get it? Jon Hager: If we dont get it, Section 10 of our contract, Section 10B indicates that there is a termination clause thats a one-day defunding or deauthorization clause. So if we dont get the funds from the feds, if they pull the funds from us, or if the legislature does not authorize the expenditure of those funds, we notify Xerox, all work stops immediately and were done at that point. Governor: Well, lets get to the specific numbers on this. So you essentially until -- the exchange is required to be self-sustaining after 2014? Jon Hager: Yes, sir. Governor: And right now as it stands, federal funds -- actually, Ill do it the other way. The states responsibility is .84 percent, correct, up until 2014? Jon Hager: Correct. Governor: And that amount it what? 200-and-something thousand, I cant remember the exact number. Jon Hager: Its -- yeah. I believe its about 250. Let me get that. Its $279,000, just over 279,000. Governor: Okay. And then what is the math for the federal responsibility, or the federal share? Jon Hager: Oh, for the federal share? The federal share is 90 -- excuse me, 95 percent through Affordable Care Act funds of about $31.5 million, 1.3 million from Title 19 Medicaid funds, and 69,000 from Title 21 (inaudible) funds, and all of those are federally funded. Governor: And that assumes that grant coming in in the next three days? Jon Hager: Absolutely.
Governor: Okay. Now, after -- starting January of 2014, all the costs are on the State of Nevada, correct? Jon Hager: For the calendar year 2014, we are still funded as part of ACA funds. So starting January 1 of 2015, yes. All of that is required to be paid in some manner, not from federal funds. Governor: All right. And what would that amount be in 2015? Jon Hager: So currently we show $36.8 million between 2015 and 2016. So its 20.16 million for 2015 and 18.6 million for 2016. Governor: So we have to find those dollars? Jon Hager: Yes, sir. Governor: I guess theres two questions. We either have to find these dollars, or we say never mind after that. Jon Hager: Yes, sir. Governor: And I guess Id want to hear what the consequence would be if we said were not going to be doing it after -- with that, but I think the proposals that you presented in terms of how were going to pay for this in 15 and 16 is (a) a user fee, so those that are participating in the exchange would pay a sum to cover the costs of running the exchange. Jon Hager: Yes, sir. Governor: Second would essentially be an obligation from the general fund and just pay for it out of that. Jon Hager: Thats an option. Governor: Well, and Im not -- believe me, thats not on -- when youre saying its an option, its not my option Jon Hager: Yes. Governor: but it is an option. And then the third would be essentially increasing the insurance premium tax, or assessing some type of an assessment through the insurance premium tax? Jon Hager: There could be multiple ways to do that. So we have five committees that help make the policies or recommend policies to the Board, and depending on the policy, the Board either has the authority to make that or recommend it during the budgetary process. So the Finance and Sustainability Advisory Committee has recommended that starting in January of 2014, we start charging a user fee to carriers. Its a smaller fee. Its meant to build up a small
operational reserve so we can pay our bills. Basically a 30-day reserve in the long term. And then it gradually goes up to a long-term rate. And the long-term rate, I cant remember -- yeah. I think the long-term rate is currently about $7 per member per month. So the proposal is that we charge those fees to the carriers based on the enrollment within the exchange. Obviously that would go into the premium that the participant would pay. Now, the funny thing about the way that the advance premium tax credit is provided to people between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level is that if you are subsidized in those ranges, basically 100 percent of the cost of that user fee would be paid for the advanced premium tax credit. Any amount -- anybody that has greater than 400 percent of the federal poverty level, who happens to be on the exchange, would be charged that in their premium because they dont get a tax credit, they dont get that paid for by the advanced premium tax credit. So were really looking at a majority of the people. And I think Nevadas population is about 50 percent are between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. About 50 percent -- and then another 25 percent above that. So basically youre looking at about twothirds if we actually get a good population on that upper level, about two-thirds of that would be paid for by the advanced premium tax credit. Governor: Youll have a good idea though, I mean, if all this is approved in 2014 how its going. I mean, youll know how many people have enrolled, and what amount of money is coming in. Jon Hager: Yes. Governor: And then as I say, after that, what if -- if the user fees are not sufficient, where do you go from there to cover the cost of the exchange? Jon Hager: Thats a good question. We have to make sure that we estimate our enrollment properly. And if we estimate our enrollment too high, then we could end up with a situation in which we have a deficit because we have certain fixed costs. As far as the contract goes, the contract is based on a per member per month basis. So if the contract amount is say $6 per member per month and we have fixed costs that require 50 cents per month, then the total amount that we would charge is $6.50 per month. One of the ways that we have mitigated the requirement to -- or the concern about becoming insolvent is that we have created in our rating structure that were recommending to the Board on Thursday, a reserve thats slightly higher than 30 days. So we can get some demographic data behind us, some historical data to figure out where our enrollment is in later years. So during -so while we are targeting a 30-day operational reserve in the outer years, its going to be more like 60 or 80 days in that first year to make sure that we can absorb those fluctuations, and Im pretty confident that that operational reserve will give us what we need to be able to get through those first couple of years where things are shaky. I will say that one of the committee recommendations is also to request a portion -- a general fund appropriation in the amount of 25 percent of the increase in premium taxes due to those that are currently uninsured becoming insured. So if youre currently uninsured right now and youre
not paying your premium tax, you become insured and suddenly youre paying a premium tax. Weve estimated that that will create about $10 million in extra general fund revenue. The committee has recommended that we request 25 percent of that for the first year and a half of our operations which takes us through to the first biennium from a state budgetary perspective. Whether that gets approved by the Board, I dont know. Well have to see on Thursday, and well be sure to let your office know what has happened at that point. So that is the -- the other option is a portion of the state general fund. Again, I dont know if thats going to make it through the Board or not. Governor: Now, that other question that I asked, and we got to think this way, but if it is insolvent, and you get to January 1 of 2015 and you know its insolvent and its not looking good and we choose not to go forward with it, what are the consequences of that? Jon Hager: So theres a couple pieces to it. First of all, the Affordable Care Act pays for, like, 99 percent of the funding. So the -- we shouldnt be insolvent that first year. Weve got all the funding we need for that, assuming we get this grant in the next couple of days. But we should have all the funding we need for 2014. By that point well have some idea of the enrollment levels and well be able to adjust our rate going forward for 2015 so that we can make sure we have the proper operational reserve, adjust the rate so were not insolvent and can go forward. Again, the majority of our fees are the (inaudible) contract. We are outsourcing a large portion of our operations in this contract, again, on a per month basis, so it puts the risk on Xerox rather than us for a majority of the contract. So were really only at risk for those fixed costs. Because we have the ability to create some operational reserves, get funded -- be funded by the Affordable Care Act for that first year for 2014, we should be able to adjust in plenty of time to get to 2015 and not be insolvent. Governor: But even then, at some point, and I dont like to play in the land of hypotheticals, but we need to have this conversation which is, at some point if its determined that its not working, and its still the law of the land, what would the consequence be if we were to determine that we didnt as a state want to go forward? Jon Hager: So again, we still have the same three options that every other state has. We can be a state-based exchange, a partnership exchange or a federally facilitated exchange, and the partnership exchange is somewhere in the middle. So youve got those three options. So if we decide we dont want to be in this business, we can step back and say, you know what, the feds should take this over. I will say, however, that the feds have indicated that they, regardless of which of the three options you choose, we will be put at some point on a glide path to becoming a state-based exchange. Thats what we were told at one of the conferences weve been to. Whether thats true or not, it remains to be seen. But at this point, we have the same three options that any other state has, so we can go forward with the state-based exchange. If at some point, at any point during the process, we determine that we dont like this direction, we want to, you know, take our hands off this and let the feds run it, we can do that. There are a couple of ways, again, that we do that. Number one, if we dont get the funding or if were not authorized to spend the funding, again, work stops at that point, the termination clause hits, and we notice Xerox, and everything stops. If we simply -- if we have the authorization to
go forward and we simply decide that we dont want to do this, there is a 365-day termination without cause, and basically we say we dont want to do this. We could do that all the way up until December 31of 2013, and that would be effective as late as December 1 of 2014. Thats the 365 days. And so we would be able to utilize that 99 percent of funding from the Affordable Care Act all the way through this contract, and then at that point we say, no, we dont want to do that. We would have to make that decision by the end of 2013 to make sure that there is no additional obligation by the state or an entity in the state, whether its carriers or however we end up doing this. Governor: I want to back you up a little bit. When you said that you were told by HHS that there may be a requirement to go to a state-based exchange. In other words, if there was a federally-run exchange, at some point they would say were done, its on you State of Nevada? Jon Hager: Thats what it sounded like, yes. Governor: Okay. Whatever that means. I mean Jon Hager: Yes. Governor: All right. Now, there are many other states out there that are saying were not building an exchange, and you go to all these conferences and you talk with your peers from the other states. What is actually happening in these other states that are saying were not going do to it? Jon Hager: So it depends on the states. Some of the states are saying were not doing it and behind the scenes they are doing it, and theyre getting ready for it. There are other states that are not doing it. One of the concerns that we had if we were to say, nope, were done, were not doing any of this, because we are at the point that were at where we are in the trenches implementing and understanding all the nuances of the regulations, we have the ability to provide HHS with very constructive criticism on various items. We use our position as a lead implementer to be able to push back against HHS and say, you know what, you know, I think you like where were at, but if you do this, this is going to substantially harm the Nevada market, and we cant, you know, we cant move forward this way. So we use our position to push back a little bit with them and try to influence the regulation process to make sure that regulations are implemented that dont substantially harm the Nevada market. And so the Commissioner of Insurance has been in several of these meetings with us with CCIIO, the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, part of CMS. And so by being in the position that were at by actually implementing the exchange, we are in a position to be able to influence that process and help us form whats to come. Theres other states that are saying these are too complicated, we cant do it, and were not going to have any part of the conversation. There are other states that have said, were going to wait until after the elections to see what happens. Governor: And Im going to get to that, so Jon Hager: Sure. Sure. And so -- and then theres states that are implementing, and there are states that want to piggyback on what were doing or get information from us.
Governor: But under the current -- the law of the land right now, if were a state that says were not going to do this, and the state is not building its own exchange, the federal government will come in and build its own exchange and give the state the bill? Jon Hager: Yes. Governor: All right. The election, heres another thing you hear about. Jon Hager: Yes, sir. Governor: If theres a -- if Mr. Romney is elected President, theyre going to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and lets say, again, hypothetically, that were to happen, that it were repealed. What would Nevadas options be if we were far down this road in terms of compliance with the Affordable Care Act and the requirements weve been talking about. Jon Hager: Sure. So if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, and funding goes away, we have the option to say weve lost all funding, work ceases and were done. The other option that we have is to try and renegotiate the contract with Xerox, to reduce the scope of the contract, and to create an exchange that is right for Nevada without the Affordable Care Act. And there is a clause, a termination clause that says that we have I think its ten days to negotiate. If we cant negotiate a substantial change to the contract, then theres a 60-day -- basically a 60-day out at that point. So we call it frustration of purpose, and thats either for a substantial reduction to the scope, or if the (inaudible) come out and theyre so complicated that we cant agree on what to do, it goes both ways. So we have a couple of options. Number one, weve started down the process of implementing an exchange, we can renegotiate with Xerox and try to create an exchange pursuant to NRS 695(i) without the Affordable Care Act, and we do the things that are required in the Nevada statute, or we completely shut our doors and say were done. Either way, the state does not have a liability to move forward. We can say, you know what, were done, we dont want to be part of this business, or you know what, wed like to create a slightly smaller scope exchange for our citizens. Governor: So is it fair to say, as weve had the bill has passed, its been signed into law, the Supreme Court has reviewed the constitutionality of it, as I said, theres still a lot of unanswered questions. I guess another one was penalties. Now, the Supreme Court case was unclear, I mean, perhaps thats the opt-in, opt-out, but Ill stay away from that. But as we sit here today, there really -- the options are two. You dont build an exchange and the federal government does it for you and gives you the bill. Jon Hager: Yes. Governor: You do as Nevada has done, which I believe is the prudent path, which is to control our own destiny, and we have constructed -- or are in the process of constructing a Nevada
exchange with Nevadans that complies with the law and essentially avoids federal intervention in coming in and doing it for us. Is that fair to say? Jon Hager: Yes. Obviously the Affordable Care Act is a whole bunch of federal intervention, but it certainly minimizes -- it mitigates some of that federal intervention, so yes. Doing a statebased exchange limits the federal intervention on those bullet points that I listed and probably several others that I missed. Governor: And then between now and the end of 2014, the state is essentially responsible for $250,000 of the cost of the expense of the exchange. Jon Hager: Yes, sir. Governor: And after that is an unanswered question as to how its going to be paid for. Jon Hager: Yes, sir. Governor: And making decisions today does not affect those decisions that are going to have to be made later on because, again, speaking only for myself, Im not going to be supportive of taking general fund dollars to get this done, because thats dollars away from education. Im very concerned about increasing a premium tax to subsidize it. I do believe if the exchange is going to be ongoing it has to be user fees that are going to pay for it, and I guess thats a question nobody can answer today is that it has to stand on its own two feet assuming that its still the law of the land. Jon Hager: Yes, sir. Governor: Okay. And then, as I said, those amounts after that are in the 36 million -- or 38 million approximately between 2015 and 2016. Jon Hager: Yes, sir. Governor: Okay. And Im not trying to grill you, I just -- these are just questions that I think need to be Jon Hager: I think it was in my description when I signed up. Governor: But -- all right. I may have some more questions, but I wanted to leave an opportunity for the other members of the Board to ask questions. Mr. Secretary, Madam Attorney General? Secretary of State: Governor, I think you covered about everything I had. Attorney General: I think I have a quick question, but Ill defer to the Secretary to go first. Secretary of State: I dont have any questions.
Attorney General: Thank you. Mr. Hager, the one question I really have is the distinction between the amount of the contract before and after 2014. Why is there a $5 million difference on the back end instead of the front end? It seems to me that the front end is the most costly and all to set it up, but towards the back end it should be efficiently running and weve worked through all of the kinks. And can you just give me an idea why theres a $5 million difference? Jon Hager: Yes. So first of all, the enrollment figures we used for 2014, we estimated in the contract at 150,000 people, and then in the second two years of the contract for the contract purposes we estimated 250,000 people. So its a -- what is it, a 66 percent increase something like that. So thats the major reason for that difference. When you look at the per member per month rates, they actually go down fairly substantially from the first year to the second to the third year. So on a per member per month basis, they do go down, but when you look at the aggregate based on enrollment, theyre up a lot higher that second year -- or the second and third year. Attorney General: Okay. And Im not -- Im sorry. Its not coming across clear. So that increase is based on the aggregate number of participants that are anticipated in participating after 2014; is that right? Jon Hager: Yes, thats correct. Attorney General: Okay. And so -- but by lets see, 2013, Im hearing you say that well have a sense of really the needs and how many people will actually be participating after 2014, so that we know what our costs will be associated with that and what well have to self-sustain, or selffund; is that correct? Jon Hager: Yes, thats correct, Madam Attorney General. Attorney General: So its possible that the number that you have calculated for this 38 million after 2014 may decrease if we dont have the number of aggregate participants that you had calculated, correct? Jon Hager: Thats correct. Theres actually two ways it can decrease. Number one is if the estimated enrollment goes down. And currently based upon our budget thats going forward to the Board on Thursday, we are estimating a slightly smaller amount -- a slightly smaller enrollment. The other way that it could go down is based on a decision from the Board on whether or not to conduct -- whether or not the exchange conducts individual billing, so basically whether the exchange bills individuals or whether the carriers bill individuals. And so thats a policy decision that is built into the contract. Its an option in the contract. The contract was based on a higher amount so that we dont have to come back and request additional funds, but the contract is very specific on what were paying for. So were not going to -- just because we have the extra authority in the contract, were not going to pay any additional -- anything extra other than whats in the contract. But, yeah, so those are the two ways. Either enrollment goes down or the Board chooses to let carriers do individual billing as opposed to the exchange.
Attorney General: So is it also fair to say then in the specific terms of the contract the total amount that we have in this contract which is what, 71 million, that is not necessarily in the contract as obligated that the state has to pay, correct? Jon Hager: Thats correct. Thats a contract maximum only. Attorney General: Okay. And so they will be, according to what Im hearing from you, invoicing therell be adequate kind of measurement of need and services provided that will be paid according -- over the course of the next two years, so that we will have the opportunity at some point in time to see after working with the Governors office and the legislature, when and how you would fund the cost of this contract after 2014, and even see if its a viable funding source, correct? Jon Hager: Absolutely. Attorney General: And so based on that, if its not a viable funding source, we would look to terminate this contract. Jon Hager: Correct. If we dont have the funding to continue with the exchange operations, we would terminate this contract, yes. Attorney General: Yeah. And then based on what Im seeing in the memo, if there is no adequate funding, there is a defunding clause with no penalty to the state; is that correct? Jon Hager: Thats correct, in Section 10B. Attorney General: Okay. Thank you. That answers my questions. I appreciate it. Governor: Thank you, Madam Attorney General. I did think of a couple more questions, Mr. Hagar. What if we wait? And I know weve had this conversation before, but what if we were to wait pending the outcome of the election like some other states are doing? Jon Hager: Sure. We could certainly wait. The problem is every month that goes by is a month that the programmers arent implementing this project. The original contract and RFP was scheduled to go forward with the July BOE, and due to some of our errors, we didnt have a chance to keep that on the Agenda, and so weve already lost out on a month of the implementation plan, which has essentially taken a lot of the slot time -- the slot that theyve built into the implementation plan for contingencies. They still have more left. They can still meet the requirements of the deadlines. Xerox has a subcontractor that is just there to do risk management. In addition to that, we have the PCG, assuming this contract is approved, the PCG contract is approved for IV&V, which will be monitoring both this project and the eligibility engine. Its a -- theyre going to work together, so theyll be able to make sure that the project stays on task and theyll let us know if its starting to slip, and then we have our own staff that will be monitoring this as well.
If we wait two or three more months, its going to be very difficult to implement this. Number one, if we wait another month, Xerox has indicated that theyll have to increase costs because they have to add more programmers, theyll have to take additional risk. There are service level agreements that if they dont meet the deadline by October 1 of 2013, they have to pay five or $10,000 a day. I cant remember what it is exactly. 10,000 a day? For every day that they miss that implementation deadline. So theyre taking a risk by pushing it back. Theyre going to want to increase the design, development and implementation cost to be able to meet that, so well have to renegotiate what weve already got here before us. There are other states that are a month or two behind us, and I would expect that as we get closer to the elections, those states that are moving forward with their procurements will likely see perhaps more expensive contracts because of the increase in risk. And then in November, the other thing that youve got going on is suddenly theres a bunch of states that want to do this, and the supply of programmers and computer techs is, you know, theres not enough to meet the demand, and so costs will go up at that point too. So I see -- I would expect that costs will go up over the next six months, theyll level off for about a year or so, and then theyll start going down after that. Delaying this a month to two months to three -- I guess at this point itd be three months to the election, it would be very difficult to implement this. On the other hand, if we implement it now, we can always shut it off later. Governor: And just to be clear, on this grant that were going to hear about in the next few days, whats the amount associated with that? Jon Hager: That grant is $50,016,012. Governor: Say that again. Jon Hager: $50,016,012. Governor: You have that memorized I see. Jon Hager: Weve discussed it a few times. Governor: So we -- and again, if it doesnt happen, whats your recommendation if the federal government doesnt give us that grant? Jon Hager: If the federal government doesnt give us that grant, then we need to reevaluate and determine whether it is still right for Nevada to have a state-based exchange. My gut feeling is it is a valuable thing to have for Nevada, but wed have to vet that through the Board. Wed have to vet that through your office and the legislature because wed have to come to the legislature for funds at that point because there wouldnt be any Governor: The state would have to make that up in other words? Jon Hager: Yes. Yes.
Governor: Then last, do you anticipate any amendments to this contract, any changes to this contract in the near future? Jon Hager: I dont. We tried to make sure the contract is as solid as possible. We have included $257,000 in change orders just in case. And there is also a -- we call our 2,000 hour deductible at 1500 -- 2,000 hours. So basically if we -- for each year of the contract, if theres a changeover thats less than 2,000 hours, thats built into our costs as well. So we have some buffers in there to make sure that if we need to we can do the changes within the current contract. Governor: Okay. Jon Hager: Although I have to say, if the regulations become more stringent than they already are, theres always a possibility that well have to reevaluate at that point. Based on the initial guidance and the initial regulations that weve seen, this contract will suffice, but again, who knows what the feds could do. Governor: That begs a lot of answers -- or questions, Mr. Hager. But, you know, again, Im sorry to keep going on, but so the feds come in and they add all these things we didnt expect, Xerox says, oh, my gosh, we have so much more work to do than we thought. Do they come back and seek an amendment, seek more money, which would be state money? Jon Hager: Yeah. Not necessarily. So we still have the authority to receive federal money through December, 2014. So we would still have to have a state match which would be about that half percent. But we can do two things. Number one, we can request an administrative increase in our grant that weve requested from the feds of 25 percent, so weve got to have the margin there that we can request additional funds for from that grant. And then the other option is that we can go back to the feds for a fourth level one grant after the level two grant. So we can go back for another grant request if we need it. Governor: And again, just so Im clear, if we werent to do this and the feds came in and built their own exchange and billed us for it, would they bill us for that cost? Jon Hager: I honestly cant answer how that would happen. They could bill the State of Nevada. They could tack onto the premiums that the carrier is charged in a manner thats similar to what we anticipate we might be doing. I dont know. Thats the problem with whats going on right now with the federal exchange is we dont know anything about it. Governor: Yeah. And thats another reason why, you know, again, I feel like I would prefer to have this state have the control over this. We dont know if we were to not have our own exchange what the federal government would do and what it would look like and what they would charge the state, which we wouldnt have any say obviously as to what that amount would be. So that completes all my questions. I guess to summarize because weve been going for quite some time, you know, Im going to support the approval of this contract. As I said before, I think this is a prudent move for our state that if we dont do this the federal government will. It is the law of the land that the state must have an exchange, and that we either build it ourselves, and get this money that the federal government has provided in these grants to pay for it, but we
choose not and they come in and build it for us and then perhaps, which is unknown today, bill us for it. And I just think that it is a lot wiser for us to be able to control that. Now, that takes us through 2014. In 2015 Ive got a lot more questions. Weve got to see whats happening between now and then, but as I said before, I wont be supportive of taking general fund money Jon Hager: Yes, sir. Governor: to pay for this, because its taking money from education and a lot of other needs that the state has. I also wont be supportive of increasing a premium tax to subsidize the exchange. If this exchange is going to exist, it should stand on its own merits through user fees. And those who participate, we will have to -- we do have options in the event there is a change in the law. If the Affordable Care Act were to be eliminated or amended or what have you, there are enough provisions that give the state flexibility and discretion to choose what is the best method to move at that time depending on what happens. So as we sit here today, and again, were here because the law of the land is the Affordable Care Act which requires us to do this, and, you know, the other -- I guess the other comment that Id make is that if we do wait, it will cost us more money. It may -- there are only a finite amount of resources and expertise out there to complete these types of projects, and if we are to wait longer, it will cost us more money in the long run, and we may not get the services that we need to get this done right. So I have no further questions. Board members, do you have any questions with regard to this contract? Attorney General: No, Governor. Governor: Okay. Thank you very much. Jon Hager: Thank you. Governor: All right. I believe that completes Agenda Item No. 12, Contracts. I believe the contracts that are going to be held out are Contracts 10, 66, and 67; is that correct, Ms. Day? Clerk: Yes, that is correct. Governor: The Chair will accept a motion for approval for Contracts 1 through 73; is that -- do I have that right? 77. Oh, yeah, 1 through 77, and holding out Contracts 10, 66 and 67. Secretary of State: So moved. Attorney General: Second. Governor: The Secretary of State has made a motion to approve Contracts 1 through 77 with the exception of 10, 66 and 67. The Attorney General has seconded the motion. Any comments or discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Motion passes unanimously.
*13. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENTS

Five master service agreements were submitted to the Board for review and approval. Clerks Recommendation: I recommend approval. Motion By: Secretary of State Comments: Seconded By: Attorney General Vote: 3-0
Governor: Agenda Item 13, master service agreements. Clerk: There are five master service agreements that we were submitted to the Board for review and approval. Governor: I have no questions regarding any of these items. Board members? Chair will accept a motion for approval. Secretary of State: I move for approval of the five master service agreements. Attorney General: Ill second the motion. Governor: Theres a motion by the Secretary of State to approve the five master service agreements contained within Agenda Item No. 13. The Attorney General has seconded the motion. Any questions or discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Motion passes.
*14. INFORMATION ITEM

A. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Division of State Lands
Pursuant to NRS Chapters 111, Statutes of the Nevada, 1989 at page 263, the Division of State Lands is required to provide the Board of Examiners quarterly reports regarding lands or interests in lands transferred, sold, exchanged, or leased under the Tahoe Basin Act program. Also, pursuant to Chapter 355, Statutes of Nevada, 1993, at page 1153, the agency is to report quarterly on the status of real property or interests in real property transferred under the Lake Tahoe Mitigation Program. This submittal reports on program activities for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2012 (reference NRS 321.5954). Brief description 1989 Tahoe Basin Act The agency reports there were no transfers of lands or interests in lands and there were no acquisitions of lands or interests in lands for the fourth quarter of FY12.
Lake Tahoe Mitigation Program The agency reports there were no transfers of lands or interests in lands under this program for the fourth quarter of FY12. Governor: Agenda Item No. 14, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of State Lands. Ms. Day. Clerk: Thank you. Item No. 14 is pursuant to NRS Chapters 111 and 355. The Division of State Lands is required to provide the Board of Examiners quarterly reports regarding lands or interests in lands transferred, sold, exchanged or leased under the Tahoe Basin Act, and then also under the Lake Tahoe Mitigation Program. The reports are for the fiscal year quarter ending March 31, 2012, and there are no items. Governor: Yeah. No land transfers, correct? Clerk: No. Governor: All right.
15. BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENTS

Governor: Agenda Item 15, Board members comments, public comments. Madam Attorney General, is there anyone left in Las Vegas that would like to provide public comment? Attorney General: No, Governor. Governor: Is there anyone present here in Carson City that would like to provide public comment? Any Board member comments?
*16. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION ADJOURNMENT

Motion By: Secretary of State Comments: Seconded By: Attorney General Vote: 3-0
Governor: Well move on to Agenda Item 16. Is there a motion to adjourn? Secretary of State: So moved. With a smile. Attorney General: Second. Governor: Theres a motion by the Secretary of State for adjournment, second by the Attorney General. All in favor, please say aye. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. This meeting is adjourned.
Respectfully submitted, ________________________________________________________________________ JEFF MOHLENKAMP, CLERK APPROVED: ________________________________________________________________________ GOVERNOR BRIAN SANDOVAL, CHAIRMAN ________________________________________________________________________ ATTORNEY GENERAL CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO ________________________________________________________________________ SECRETARY OF STATE ROSS MILLER
BOE Date:
For Board Use Only 09/11/2012
CONTRACT SUMMARY
(This form must accompany all contracts submitted to the Board of Examiners (BOE) for review and approval)
I. DESCRIPTION OF CONTRACT
1. Contract Number: 11079 Amendment Number: Legal Entity Name: Contractor Name: Address: City/State/Zip 2 High Desert Microimaging, Inc. High Desert Microimaging, Inc. 1225 Financial Blvd Reno, NV 89501
Agency Name: SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE Agency Code: 040 Appropriation Unit: 1050-33 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: Meg Miller 775-359-6980 Vendor No.: PUR0000032 NV Business ID: NV1995111096 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2011-2013 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. X General Funds 100.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Previously Approved Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 07/01/2010
06/30/2013 3 years Contract Scanner lease/maint
5. Purpose of contract: This is the second amendment to the original contract, which decreases the contract by $13,918.75 to a maximum amount of $104,689.25; eliminates the lease of scanners; and decreases the number of scanners covered for maintenance due to the need for hardware adjustment to match authorized software licenses, based on a review of scanning hardware and software licensing. 6. CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1. The maximum amount of the original contract: 2. Total amount of any previous contract amendments: 3. Amount of current contract amendment: 4. New maximum contract amount:
$82,608.00 $36,000.00 -$13,918.75 $104,689.25
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? The eSOS Corporate Filing System requires the use of scanners to receipt incoming corporate filing documents, work requests and payment instruments and uses the microfiche/microfilm machines to convert the paper documents within the agency disaster recovery plan. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: State employees within our agency or other State agencies are not specifically trained on the interface with Canon scanners and the eSOS Corporate Filing System and do not possess the equipment knowledge to perform required maintenance.
Contract #: 11079 Page 1 of 2 1
9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Sole Source Contract (As Approved by Chief of Purchasing) Approval #: 100435 Approval Date: 04/29/2010 c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? This vendor guarantees service within 24 hours, they have a thorough knowledge of the business processes of the Office of Secretary of State, and they were awarded the contract for data conversion as our agency migrated into the eSOS Corporate Filing System that utilizes upfront scanning and imaging. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? Yes
III. OTHER INFORMATION

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Contracted with the Office of the Secretary of State since 2007 with satisfactory services. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Nevada Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval DoIT Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval
User pdover pdover pdover pdover lmuelle1 sbarkdul nhovden
Signature Date 08/08/2012 11:47:47 AM 08/08/2012 11:47:50 AM 08/08/2012 11:47:53 AM 08/08/2012 12:09:23 PM 08/09/2012 11:09:04 AM 08/14/2012 16:00:36 PM 08/15/2012 16:27:35 PM
Contract #: 11079
Page 2 of 2
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13748 Legal Entity Coons Construction Name: Contractor Name: Coons Construction Address: 13 Alfonso Drive, Ste B City/State/Zip Carson City, NV 89706
Agency Name: STATE PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION Agency Code: 082 Appropriation Unit: 1349 - All Categories Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: null775-721-8822 Vendor No.: NV Business ID: NV20091032286 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2016 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 100.00 % building rent income fees 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of Yes or b. other effective date: Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date 09/2012 Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No NA
06/30/2016 3 years and 303 days Contract Snow Removal Service
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide ongoing snow removal services for multiple State buildings and heavy equipment operations as needed in Carson City, Nevada. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $170,000.00 Other basis for payment: monthly progress payments on services provided
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? To maintain the appearance of State owned buildings 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Lack of manpower 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing Yes Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? demonstrated the required expertise for work on this project and scored highest on the evaluation.
d. Last bid date:
07/13/2012
Anticipated re-bid date: No
10. Does the contract contain any IT components?

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? No If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Not Applicable 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Nevada Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User dgrimm dgrimm dgrimm dgrimm jrodrig9 cwatson Pending
Signature Date 08/08/2012 16:37:43 PM 08/08/2012 16:37:46 PM 08/08/2012 16:37:49 PM 08/13/2012 11:07:40 AM 08/16/2012 07:31:17 AM 08/16/2012 14:42:16 PM
Contract #: 13748
Page 2 of 2
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13736 Legal Entity MCNEILS CLEANING SERVICE INC Name: Contractor Name: MCNEILS CLEANING SERVICE INC Address: PO BOX 40916 City/State/Zip RENO, NV 89504
Agency Name: STATE PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION Agency Code: 082 Appropriation Unit: 1349-12 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: null775/359-4422 Vendor No.: T81015272 NV Business ID: NV20061269584 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2017 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % X Fees 100.00 % building rent income fees Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 10/01/2012
09/30/2016 4 years Contract Janitorial Services
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide ongoing janitorial services for Stewart Building #6 located at 5500 Snyder Way, Carson City, Nevada. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $60,792.00 Other basis for payment: Cost for services will be provided at $955.00 per month for four (4) years for a total cost of $45,840.00; Annual hard floor cleaning is $175.00 per cleaning; Annual window cleaning is $1,003.00 per cleaning; Annual carpet cleaning is $950.00 per cleaning; Annual blind cleaning is $360.00 per; $5,000.00 for extra services.
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? State buildings must be kept clean. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Lack of manpower. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other?
Lowest Bidder. d. Last bid date:
08/03/2012
07/01/2016

User csweeney csweeney csweeney csweeney jrodrig9 cwatson Pending
Signature Date 08/08/2012 08:29:41 AM 08/08/2012 08:29:44 AM 08/08/2012 08:29:48 AM 08/08/2012 08:29:52 AM 08/12/2012 18:52:12 PM 08/16/2012 14:48:03 PM
Contract #: 13736
Page 2 of 2
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13693 Legal Entity OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY DBA Name: Contractor Name: OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY DBA Address: NEVADA ELEVATOR 4625 S POLARIS AVE STE 216 City/State/Zip LAS VEGAS, NV 89103-5670
Contact/Phone: null702/871-5773 Vendor No.: T60153142A NV Business ID: NV19441000038 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2017 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % X Fees 100.00 % Buildings & Grounds building rent income fees Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 10/01/2012
09/30/2016 4 years Contract Elevator Maintenance
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide ongoing inspection, repair, and maintenance of hydraulic and gear/gearless traction elevators in various state buildings located statewide. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $920,864.00 Other basis for payment: $8,768.00 per month and $500,000.00 for extra services to be used upon written request and approval of a Buildings and Grounds designee; Regular hourly rate $175.00; Overtime Rate $350.00; Materials will be charged at cost plus 15%
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? Elevators must be maintained to comply with Federal Code. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Lack of expertise and equipment. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable
c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? This contractor received the highest score with the Evaluation Committee. d. Last bid date: 06/30/2012 Anticipated re-bid date: 04/30/2016 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: 2008-2012, Buildings and Grounds, Service Satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Foreign Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User wsalisp1 wsalisp1 wsalisp1 csweeney kkolbe cwatson Pending
Signature Date 08/02/2012 06:39:13 AM 08/02/2012 06:39:15 AM 08/02/2012 06:39:17 AM 08/02/2012 07:48:36 AM 08/02/2012 10:08:11 AM 08/16/2012 15:07:31 PM
Contract #: 13693
Page 2 of 2
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13683 Legal Entity RENO TAHOE FRANCHISING INC Name: Contractor Name: RENO TAHOE FRANCHISING INC Address: DBA JANI KING OF RENO 164 HUBBARD WAY STE C City/State/Zip RENO, NV 89502-3778
Contact/Phone: Vaughn Parks 775/323-1600 Vendor No.: T29026876 NV Business ID: NV20051738893 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2017 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % X Fees 100.00 % Buildings & Grounds, building rent income fee Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 10/01/2012
09/30/2016 4 years Contract Janitorial Services
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide ongoing janitorial services to the Department of Motor Vehicles located at 555 Wright Way, Carson City, Nevada. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $412,340.00 Other basis for payment: Cost for services will be provided at $6,100.00 per month for four (4) years for a total cost of $292,800.00; Semi-Annual hard floor cleaning is $8,291.00 per cleaning for a total cost of $66,328.00; Annual window cleaning is $2,278.00 per cleaning, for a total cost of $9,112.00 for four (4) years; Annual carpet cleaning is $8,205.00 per cleaning, for a total cost of 32,820.00 for four (4) years; Annual blind cleaning is $320.00 per cleaning, for a total cost of $1,280.00 for (4) years; an additional $10,000.00 for extra services, to be used upon the written request and approval of a Building and Grounds designee, for a total contract cost of $412,340.00.
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? State buildings must be kept clean for safety of the public and employees. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Lack of manpower. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three):
b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? This contractor obtained the highest score during the Evaluation Committee meeting for RFP#26976. d. Last bid date: 06/21/2012 Anticipated re-bid date: 01/01/2016 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

User wsalisp1 wsalisp1 wsalisp1 csweeney kkolbe cwatson Pending
Contract #: 13683
Page 2 of 2
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13745 Legal Entity U.S. Leasecomm LLC Name: Contractor Name: U.S. Leasecomm LLC Address: 8630 Cameron St. City/State/Zip Las Vegas, NV 89139
Agency Name: STATE PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION Agency Code: 082 Appropriation Unit: 1349 - All Categories Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: null702-254-0444 Vendor No.: NV Business ID: NV19971362163 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2016 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 100.00 % building rent income fees 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of Yes or b. other effective date: Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date 09/2012 Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No NA
06/30/2016 3 years and 303 days Contract Landscaping Services
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide ongoing landscaping services for multiple State buildings in Las Vegas, Nevada. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $209,904.00 Other basis for payment: monthly progress payments on services provided
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? to maintain the appearance of State owned buildings 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: lack of manpower 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing Yes Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? the evaluation committee chose this contractor based on the overall highest score d. Last bid date: 07/12/2012 Anticipated re-bid date:
No

Contract #: 13745
Page 2 of 2
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13649 Legal Entity Research Facilities Design Name: Contractor Name: Research Facilities Design Address: 3965 FIFTH AVE. SUITE 400 City/State/Zip SAN DIEGO, CA 92103
Contact/Phone: null(619) 297-01 Vendor No.: NV Business ID: NV20051539998 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2016 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % X Bonds 100.00 % proceeds from sale of bonds Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % Agency Reference #: 40043 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of Yes or b. other effective date: Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date 08/2012 Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No NA
06/30/2016 3 years and 334 days Contract Arch/Eng Servs
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide professional architectural/engineering services for the Science Engineering & Technology Building Perchloric Hood Relocations; University of Las Vegas Main Campus; Project No. 07-C09(M); Contract No. 40043. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $36,500.00 Other basis for payment: monthly progress payments on services provided
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? 2007 CIP 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Professional Services are provided by SPWB to support the State Capital Improvement Program. Consultants are selected based on their ability to provide design and engineering services to meet the goals established by the Legislature. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Professional Service (As defined in NAC 333.150)
c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? demonstrated the required expertise for work on this project d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: SPWD, currently and/or in the past for various amounts with satisfactory results 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Foreign Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
Signature Date 08/08/2012 13:50:22 PM 08/08/2012 13:50:26 PM 08/08/2012 13:50:29 PM 08/16/2012 15:46:22 PM 08/16/2012 16:00:22 PM 08/17/2012 09:11:42 AM
Contract #: 13649
Page 2 of 2
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 10436 Amendment Number: Legal Entity Name: Contractor Name: Address: City/State/Zip 2 SIXFIFTY CORP DBA LICATA SIXFIFTY CORP DBA LICATA HANSEN ASSOCIATES ARCHITECRT 650 S ROCK BLVD STE 14 RENO, NV 89502-4116
Contact/Phone: null775/856-4200 Vendor No.: T81072404 NV Business ID: NV19991371474 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2010-2014 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % X Bonds 80.00 % sale of bonds Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 20.00 % transfer from other budget account Agency Reference #: 5118 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Previously Approved Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 08/2012 02/09/2010
06/30/2014 4 years and 141 days Contract Professional Service
5. Purpose of contract: This is the second amendment to the original contract, which provides professional architectural/engineering services associated with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrades required for the following state facilities located in Carson City, Nevada: the State Fire Marshall's Office, the Department of Education building, the State Mail Services facility, and the Nevada State Supreme Court building: SPWB CIP Project No. 09-S02(3); Contract No. 5118. This amendment increases the maximum amount from $25,900 to $26,900 for the purpose of revising plans and specifications to include four alternate faciliites projects. 6. CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1. The maximum amount of the original contract: 2. Total amount of any previous contract amendments: 3. Amount of current contract amendment: 4. New maximum contract amount: $16,000.00 $9,900.00 $1,000.00 $26,900.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? 2009 legislatively approved capital improvement project 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Professional services are provided by SPWB to support the State Capital Improvement Program. Consultants are selected based on their ability to provide designa nd engineering services to meet the goals established by the Legislature.
9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Professional Service (As defined in NAC 333.150) c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Demonstrated the required expertise for work on this project. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: SPWB, currently and/or in the past for various amounts with satisfactory results. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Nevada Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval
User dgrimm dgrimm dgrimm dgrimm jrodrig9 cwatson
Signature Date 08/08/2012 16:05:23 PM 08/08/2012 16:05:26 PM 08/08/2012 16:05:29 PM 08/08/2012 16:22:50 PM 08/12/2012 19:05:11 PM 08/16/2012 14:50:24 PM
Contract #: 10436
Page 2 of 2
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 12981 Amendment Number: Legal Entity Name: Contractor Name: Address: City/State/Zip 1 PURCELL KROB ELECTRICAL PROF PK ELECTRICAL, INC. PURCELL KROB ELECTRICAL PROF PK ELECTRICAL, INC. 681 SIERRA ROSE DR STE B RENO, NV 89511
Agency Name:
STATE PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
Agency Code: 082 Appropriation Unit: 1591-19 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: null775/826-9010 Vendor No.: T81016802 NV Business ID: NV19961128650 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2012-2015 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % X Bonds 100.00 % sale of bonds Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % Agency Reference #: 18846 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Previously Approved Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 02/14/2012
06/30/2015 3 years and 136 days Contract Arch/Eng Servs
5. Purpose of contract: This is the first amendment to the original contract, which provides professional architectural/engineering services for the Reno Wildlife Headquarters - Install Electrical and Sprinkler Systems; Project No. 11-M01; Contract No. 18846. This amendment increases the maximum amount from $89,200 to $101,000 for additional mechanical, structural and additional architectural services asssociated with the mdoification of non-code compliant return air plenums discoverd above the corridor cellings in the older portions of the building. 6. CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1. The maximum amount of the original contract: 2. Total amount of any previous contract amendments: 3. Amount of current contract amendment: 4. New maximum contract amount: $89,200.00 $0.00 $11,800.00 $101,000.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? 2011 CIP 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Professional Services are provided by SPWD to support the State Capital Improvement Program. Consultants are selected based on their ability to provide design and engineering services to meet the goals established by the Legislature.
9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Professional Service (As defined in NAC 333.150) c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? demonstrated the required expertise for work on this project. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: SPWD, currently and/or in the past for various amounts with satisfactory results. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Nevada Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval
User dgrimm dgrimm dgrimm dgrimm jrodrig9 cwatson
Signature Date 08/08/2012 16:56:49 PM 08/08/2012 16:56:52 PM 08/08/2012 16:56:55 PM 08/09/2012 07:51:26 AM 08/12/2012 18:57:30 PM 08/16/2012 14:49:09 PM
Contract #: 12981
Page 2 of 2
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13652 Legal Entity Catholic Community Services of Northern Name: Nevada Contractor Name: Catholic Community Services of Northern Nevada Address: 500 East 4th Street City/State/Zip Reno, NV 89513
Agency Name:
PURCHASING DIVISION
Contact/Phone: Peter Vogel 775-322-7073 Vendor No.: T80926928 NV Business ID: NV19951101754 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2016 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 10/01/2012
09/30/2015 2 years and 364 days Contract USDA Commodity Foods
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to receive, store, and distribute U.S. Department of Agriculture foods to low income individuals according to state and federal guidelines. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $180,000.00 Other basis for payment: Reimbursements for allowable program expenses as submitted on Claim for Reimbursement form
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? USDA food is available to the State under The Emergency Food Assistance Program and the State Agency is responsible for this program. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: The State Agecny does not have the resources to complete this work. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing Yes Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other?
All the vendors that submit the program application and meet the qualifications of the program are awarded. All applications are excepted on a continual basis. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Current with the Food Distribution Program for several years. The work performed has been satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Non-profit Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. Not Applicable 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User kperondi kperondi kperondi mmatovin csawaya cwatson Pending
Signature Date 08/08/2012 10:43:44 AM 08/08/2012 10:43:47 AM 08/08/2012 10:43:50 AM 08/14/2012 14:49:56 PM 08/16/2012 17:15:13 PM 08/17/2012 13:55:01 PM
Contract #: 13652
Page 2 of 2
10
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13679 Legal Entity Elko Friends in Service Name: Contractor Name: Elko Friends in Service Address: 821 Water Street City/State/Zip Elko, NV 89801
Agency Name: PURCHASING DIVISION Agency Code: 083 Appropriation Unit: 1362-20 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: Susan Martsolf 775-738-3038 Vendor No.: NV Business ID: NV19891032613 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2016 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 10/01/2012
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to receive, store, and distribute U.S. Department of Agriculture foods to low income individuals according to state and federal guidelines. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $15,000.00 Other basis for payment: Reimbursements for allowable program expenses as submitted on Claim for Reimbursement form.
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? USDA food is available to the State under The Emergency Food Assistance Program and the State Agency is responsible for this program. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: The State Agency does not have the resources to complete this work. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing Yes Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other?
All vendors that submit the program application and meet the qualifications of the program are awarded. Applications are excepted on a continual basis. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

User kperondi kperondi kperondi mmatovin csawaya sbrown Pending
Contract #: 13679
Page 2 of 2
11
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13668 Legal Entity Food Bank of Northern Nevada Name: Contractor Name: Food Bank of Northern Nevada Address: 550 Italy Way City/State/Zip McCarran, NV 89434
Contact/Phone: Cherie Jamason 775-331-3663 Vendor No.: NV Business ID: NV19831012424 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2016 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 10/01/2012
II. JUSTIFICATION
All vendors that submit the program application and meet the qualifications of the program are awarded. All applications are excepted on a continual basis. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

Contract #: 13668
Page 2 of 2
12
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13644 Legal Entity Las Vegas Rescue Mission Name: Contractor Name: Las Vegas Rescue Mission Address: 480 W Bonanza Road City/State/Zip Las Vegas, NV 89106
Contact/Phone: Robert Brunner 702-382-1766 Vendor No.: NV Business ID: NV19791009917 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2016 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 10/01/2012
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to receive, store, and distribute U.S. Department of Agriculture foods to low income individuals according to state and federal guidelines. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $450,000.00 Other basis for payment: Reimbursements for allowable program expenses as submitted on Claim for Reimbursement form
II. JUSTIFICATION

Contract #: 13644
Page 2 of 2
13
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13659 Legal Entity Nevada Rural Counties RSVP Program, Name: Inc. Contractor Name: Nevada Rural Counties RSVP Program, Inc. Address: 2621 NorthGate Lane #6 City/State/Zip Carson City, NV 89706
Agency Name:
PURCHASING DIVISION
Contact/Phone: Janice Ayres 775-687-4680 Vendor No.: NV Business ID: NV19921048693 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2016 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 10/01/2012
II. JUSTIFICATION

Contract #: 13659
Page 2 of 2
14
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13758 Legal Entity UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF Name: Contractor Name: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF Address: COMMERCE 1401 CONSTITUTION AVE NW City/State/Zip WASHINGTON, DC 20230-0001
Agency Name: COMMISSION ON TOURISM Agency Code: 101 Appropriation Unit: 1522-43 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: null202/482-0140 Vendor No.: T29023076 NV Business ID: Government Entity To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 100.00 % Lodging Tax 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date or b. other effective date 09/2012 07/01/2012
Retroactive? Yes If "Yes", please explain NCOT has entered into the MOA for the previous two years, so the NCOT China representative already occupies the office space as outlined in the MOA. Upon inquiry of new staff in the NCOT business office, conversations with the Budget Division concluded that this MOA should be approved by the Board of Examiners. In an effort to correct the situation, NCOT seeks board approval retroactive to July 1, 2012 with the intent to have future MOA's approved prior to the start of a new state fiscal year. 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: 06/30/2013 364 days Other (include description): Memorandum of Agreement NCOT Shanghai MOA
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new Memorandum of Agreement to establish the terms and conditions under which the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service, International Trade Adminisration, U.S. Department of Commerce, and the Nevada Commission on Tourism will cooperate to promote tourism from China by physically co-locating at the U.S. Commercial Center in Shanghai, China. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $19,967.35 Other basis for payment: $19,967.35 payable in one installment due on January 31, 2013.
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? The Nevada Commission on Tourism has a current contract with Hongxia Chen/NCOT China Ltd. to maintain operation of a representative office in Beijing and Shanghai for the State of Nevada, Nevada Commission on Tourism in the People's Republic of China, which will help increase the Chinese visitor volume to Nevada. Part of the contract includes payment for shared office space at the U.S. Commercial Center in Shanghai. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: This Memorandum of Agreement is with a federal government agency for Nevada to be included as a tenant at the U.S. Commercial Center in Shanghai. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited?
Contract #: 13758
No
Page 1 of 2 15
Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? Yes If "Yes", please explain This Memorandum of Agreement is with the federal government. 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? No If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Not Applicable 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office because the legal entity is a: Governmental Entity 15. Not Applicable 16. Not Applicable 17. Not Applicable 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User kwilliam kwilliam kwilliam kwilliam knielsen cwatson Pending
Signature Date 08/09/2012 18:19:45 PM 08/09/2012 18:19:48 PM 08/09/2012 18:19:50 PM 08/09/2012 18:19:52 PM 08/14/2012 10:53:39 AM 08/17/2012 13:59:07 PM
Contract #: 13758
Page 2 of 2
15
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13696 Legal Entity BOARD OF REGENTS-TMCC Name: Contractor Name: BOARD OF REGENTS-TMCC Address: City/State/Zip TMCC CONTROLLERS OFFICE 7000 DANDINI BLVD RENO, NV 89512-3999
Agency Name:
GOVERNORS OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agency Code: 102 Appropriation Unit: 1526-19 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: null775/673-7971 Vendor No.: D35000812 NV Business ID: Governmental Entity To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 100.00 % Dept of Employment, Trainig & Rehab (State Career Enhancement Prg Funds) 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of Yes or b. other effective date: Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date 09/2012 Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No NA
06/30/2013 302 days Interlocal Agreement Train NV Businesses
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new Intrastate Interlocal Contract between Public Agencies to provide training for employees of Nevada businesses that have been approved by the Governor's Office of Economic Development. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $500,000.00 Other basis for payment: Invoiced based on number of employees trained, training received and length of training.
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 231 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: GOED does not have the expertise to provide this type of training. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Exempt (Per statute) c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other?
Intrastate Interlocal Contract between Public Agencies. Upon thorough review and evaluation, contractor clearly indicated an understanding of the delierables. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? Yes If "Yes", please explain This is an Intrastate Interlocal Contract between Public Agencies. 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Since July, 2010 with NCED/GOED and quality of service was satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office because the legal entity is a: Governmental Entity 15. Not Applicable 16. Not Applicable 17. Not Applicable 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User mstenger mstenger mstenger mstenger ekin4 jborrowm Pending
Signature Date 07/23/2012 16:34:34 PM 07/23/2012 16:34:40 PM 07/24/2012 09:53:37 AM 07/24/2012 10:03:03 AM 08/15/2012 12:13:39 PM 08/21/2012 09:43:10 AM
Contract #: 13696
Page 2 of 2
16
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13753 Legal Entity KPS 3 INC Name: Contractor Name: KPS 3 INC Address: City/State/Zip 50 W LIBERTY ST STE 640 RENO, NV 89501-1946
Agency Name:
GOVERNORS OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agency Code: 102 Appropriation Unit: 1526-11 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: null775/686-7439 Vendor No.: PUR0004720 NV Business ID: NV19941094961 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. X General Funds 100.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of Yes or b. other effective date: Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date 09/2012 Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No NA
06/30/2013 302 days Contract Marketing
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide full-service marketing of Nevada and the Governor's Office on Economic Development to local, national, and international decision-makers. Additionally, the agency will handle strategy, branding, advertising, web design/development, collateral, and other marketing duties as assigned. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $99,000.00 Other basis for payment: Monthly upon invoice not to exceed $99,000.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 231 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: GOED does not have the expertise to provide this type of service 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other?
Contracts were solicited through agency RFP#01-13. Upon thorough review and evaluation, contractor clearly indicated an understanding of the deliverables. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? No If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Not Applicable 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Nevada Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval DoIT Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User mstenger mstenger mstenger mstenger lmuelle1 ekin4 jborrowm Pending
Signature Date 08/08/2012 14:02:30 PM 08/08/2012 14:02:32 PM 08/08/2012 14:02:36 PM 08/08/2012 14:02:39 PM 08/13/2012 10:03:47 AM 08/22/2012 13:07:59 PM 08/22/2012 14:45:09 PM
Contract #: 13753
Page 2 of 2
17
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 11178 Amendment Number: Legal Entity Name: Contractor Name: Address: City/State/Zip 2 CPS Nevada, LLC CPS Nevada, LLC Division of Cashman Equipment 600 GLENDALE AVE SPARKS, NV 89431
Agency Name: ENTERPRISE IT SERVICES Agency Code: 180 Appropriation Unit: 1385-07 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: Daryl Dassinger 775/332-2432 Vendor No.: PUR0000249A NV Business ID: NV20081475761 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2011-2014 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % X Fees 100.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Previously Approved Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 07/01/2010
06/30/2014 4 years Contract Maintenance on UPS
5. Purpose of contract: This is the second amendment to the original contract, which provides maintenance service on the Enterprise Information Technology Service's Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) system located at the Computer Facility. This amendment will increase the amount of the contract from $9,990.00 to $19,990.00. 6. CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1. The maximum amount of the original contract: 2. Total amount of any previous contract amendments: 3. Amount of current contract amendment: 4. New maximum contract amount: $9,990.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 $19,990.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? The Computer Facility requires preventive maintenance and emergency work (as needed) on the UPS system. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: State employees are not certified to perform these tasks. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three):
b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Lowest bidder. d. Last bid date: 04/08/2010 Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No
04/08/2014

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: 2008-2012, Enterprise Information Technology Services, Service Satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: LLC 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval
User wsalisp1 wsalisp1 wsalisp1 csweeney ekin4 jborrowm
Signature Date 08/14/2012 15:09:57 PM 08/14/2012 15:10:00 PM 08/14/2012 15:10:03 PM 08/14/2012 15:34:07 PM 08/15/2012 12:55:23 PM 08/21/2012 09:17:21 AM
Contract #: 11178
Page 2 of 2
18
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13692 Legal Entity SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC BUILDINGS Name: Contractor Name: SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC BUILDINGS Address: AMERICAS INC 1380 GREG STREET, SUITE 224 City/State/Zip SPARKS, NV 89731
Agency Name: ENTERPRISE IT SERVICES Agency Code: 180 Appropriation Unit: 1385-07 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: KEVIN MCKEEGAN 7753599825 Vendor No.: PUR0001005D NV Business ID: NV20071402383 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2017 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % X Fees 100.00 % Facility Fees Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 10/01/2012
09/30/2016 4 years Contract HVAC Maintenance
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide ongoing maintenance and repairs to the air conditioners Direct Digital Control (DDC) System at the Computer Facility. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $65,000.00 Other basis for payment: Year 1 - $12,570.00, Weekdays 0800-1700 - $111/hr, Weekdays 1701-0759 & Weekends $166.50/hr, Holidays - $222/hr; Year 2 - $12,924.00, Weekdays 0800-1700 - $114/hr, Weekdays 1701-0759 & Weekends $171.00/hr, Holidays - $228/hr; Year 3 - $13,312.00, Weekdays 0800-1700 - $117/hr, Weekdays 1701-0759 & Weekends $176.00/hr, Holidays - $234/hr; Year 4 - $13,688.00, Weekdays 0800-1700 - $121/hr, Weekdays 1701-0759 & Weekends $182/hr, Holidays - $242/hr
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? The Facility's mainframe computer system will not function without the proper temperature and humidity. The Direct Digital Control System controls the air conditioning and needs regular maintenance as well as emergency repairs, as necessary. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Lack of expertise. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three):
Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Sole Source Contract (As Approved by Chief of Purchasing) Approval #: 120708 Approval Date: 07/17/2012 c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: 2008-2012, EITS, Service Satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Foreign Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User wsalisp1 wsalisp1 wsalisp1 csweeney ekin4 cwatson Pending
Contract #: 13692
Page 2 of 2
19
19
19
19
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13731 Legal Entity EMETRIC LLC Name: Contractor Name: EMETRIC LLC Address: 211 N LOOP 1604 E STE 170 City/State/Zip SAN ANTONIO, TX 78232
Agency Name: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Agency Code: 300 Appropriation Unit: 2709-64 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: null210/496-6500 Vendor No.: T27000846 NV Business ID: NV20101526272 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2015 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of Yes or b. other effective date: Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date 09/2012 Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No NA
09/30/2014 2 years and 29 days Contract Framework Support
5. Purpose of contract: This a new contract to provide support to the implementation of our new accountability system called the Nevada School Performance Framework (NSPF) by supporting our current IT applications that collect the data, developing new collection methods for data that is not collected, reporting data from the NSPF to include training, and adding these new data sets to a new Nevada Report Card built by the vendor. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $980,750.00 Other basis for payment: Payment upon proper invoicing as work is completed not to exceed $980,750.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? The Nevada Department of Education has just received a waiver from the federal government for a new system of NCLB accountability reporting. This new system is very bold and will require the addition of many data sources and enhanced reporting for all schools and districts. The system that is being built is called the Nevada School Performance Framework. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: The requirements for the development aspect of this project far outweighs the resources available within our Nevada Department of Education IT office as well as other state agencies. Additionally, the timelines outlined by the state are extremely tight and only an outside entitiy with multiple resources can accomplish this task in the time alloted. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing Yes Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three):
b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? This vendor was chosen by the evaluation team as the hightest in accomplishing deliverables with the best cost proposal. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 05/07/2016 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: eMetric is currently under contract with NDE for reporting writing assessments. This relationship is productive and NDE is very satisfied with this relationship. eMetric reported data for the Department of Education Writing Assessment Program previous to 2007 school year. They did an excellent job. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: LLC 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User amccalla amccalla amccalla ebarraga sbrown sbrown Pending
Contract #: 13731
Page 2 of 2
20
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13742 Legal Entity LEITNER, DAVID DBA Name: Contractor Name: LEITNER, DAVID DBA Address: PACIFIC RESEARCH ASSOCIATES 5201 SW WESTGATE DR STE 228 City/State/Zip PORTLAND, OR 97221-2427
Agency Name: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Agency Code: 300 Appropriation Unit: 2712-04 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: null503/297-5300 Vendor No.: T27019822 NV Business ID: NV2010156126 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2015 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of Yes or b. other effective date: Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date 09/2012 Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No NA
09/10/2014 2 years and 9 days Contract Reports & Evaluation
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to collect the required data for the Federal Comprehensive State Performance Report (CSPR) for applicable Title I and Title III programs as well as evaluate the 21st Century Community Learning Centers programs 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $91,440.00 Other basis for payment: Upon receipt of a detailed monthly invoice for services not to exceed $91,440.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? The United States Department of Education (USDOE) requires certain data be provided as part of the Comprehensive School Performance Report, as well as an annual evaluation of 21st Century programs. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Due to small staff size assigned to work with Elementary and Secondary Education, the consultants who handle the programs included on this contract, also handle a minimum of three other programs as well. Due to the workload assigned to Nevada Department of Education staff, there is not enough time to complete these assignments, and no other state agency has the required background knowledge and/or expertise. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three):
b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Pacific Research Associates was the only vendor to submit a proposal. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Nevada Department of Education. The quality of service provided was satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office because the legal entity is a: Sole Proprietor 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. Not Applicable 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User amccalla amccalla amccalla ebarraga sbrown sbrown Pending
Contract #: 13742
Page 2 of 2
21
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 12515 Amendment 1 Number: Legal Entity LEARNINGEXPRESS LLC Name: Contractor Name: LEARNINGEXPRESS LLC Address: City/State/Zip 2 RECTOR ST FL 26 NEW YORK, NY 10006-1832
Agency Name:
NEVADA STATE LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES Agency Code: 332 Appropriation Unit: 2891-12 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: Kheil McIntyre 646-274-6439 Vendor No.: T27028286 NV Business ID: NV20111464092 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2012-2014 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Previously Approved Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 09/13/2011
09/13/2012 2 years and 291 days Contract Database Licenses
5. Purpose of contract: This is the first amendment to the original contract, which provides access to online K-12 licensed encyclopedia databases. Theses databases are used remotely statewide by students and libraries in Nevada which support K-12 curriculum. This amendment extends the termination date from September 13, 2012, to June 30, 2014, and increases the maximum amount of the contract from $45,000 to $125,877 due to the continued need for these services. 6. CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1. The maximum amount of the original contract: 2. Total amount of any previous contract amendments: 3. Amount of current contract amendment: 4. New maximum contract amount: and/or the termination date of the original contract has changed to: $45,000.00 $0.00 $80,877.00 $125,877.00 06/30/2014
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? This was originally requested and approved by the State Commission of Technology in Education. It is in the best interest of the state to continue to provide its citizens and students statewide access via libraries and the internet. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: The State Does not have licensed databases.
9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Eleven proposals were received and this vendor was chosen to meet the libraries needs. d. Last bid date: 04/13/2011 Anticipated re-bid date: 04/02/2014 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? No If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Not Applicable 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Foreign Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval
User csweeney csweeney csweeney csweeney ekin4 jborrowm
Signature Date 07/18/2012 09:02:37 AM 07/18/2012 09:02:41 AM 07/24/2012 08:36:19 AM 07/24/2012 08:36:24 AM 08/15/2012 12:44:56 PM 08/21/2012 09:51:07 AM
Contract #: 12515
Page 2 of 2
22
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13703 Legal Entity ZIRMED INC Name: Contractor Name: ZIRMED INC Address: 888 W MARKET ST STE 400 City/State/Zip LOUISVILLE, KY 40202-4042
Agency Name: HEALTH DIVISION Agency Code: 406 Appropriation Unit: 3208-04 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: null502/779-4370 Vendor No.: T29016276 NV Business ID: NV20101524863 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2015 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. X General Funds 100.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % Agency Reference #: HD 13043 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of Yes or b. other effective date: Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date 09/2012 Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No NA
06/30/2015 2 years and 302 days Contract Billing Services
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide claims processing services in conjunction with online claims management processing systems. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $39,062.00 Payment for services will be made at the rate of $1,143.00 per month
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? The Department of Health and Human Services, through the Health Division, is establishing an online billing service for healthcare providers and payers. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: This capability does not exist within the state at the present time. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable
c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? ZirMed appeared to provide the best value for the cost. d. Last bid date: 05/15/2012 Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No
01/01/2015

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Health Division has used this vendor with satisfactory results. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Foreign Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User valpers valpers mtorvine cschmid2 bberry nhovden Pending
Signature Date 08/01/2012 10:34:17 AM 08/01/2012 10:34:22 AM 08/03/2012 16:48:44 PM 08/06/2012 07:43:58 AM 08/09/2012 09:58:29 AM 08/21/2012 18:22:28 PM
Contract #: 13703
Page 2 of 2
23
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13715 Legal Entity WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY Name: Contractor Name: WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY Address: 1903 W MICHIGAN AVE City/State/Zip KALAMAZOO, MI 49008-5200
Contact/Phone: null269/387-4255 Vendor No.: T27023477 NV Business ID: Governmental Entity To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2016 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % Agency Reference #: HD 13044 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of Yes or b. other effective date: Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date 09/2012 Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No NA
09/30/2015 3 years and 29 days Interlocal Agreement Behavioral Education
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new interlocal agreement to provide Women, Infants, and Children participants internet-based modules related to nutrition education and behavioral counseling. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $37,620.00 Payment for services will be made at the rate of $12,540.00 per year
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? This represents a US Department of Agriculture nutritional education requirement for new WIC clients. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: The State does not have employees that can provide this training 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Exempt (Per statute) c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other?
Interlocal agreement exemption. d. Last bid date:

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Contractor has had a contractual relationship with the Health Division with satisfactory results. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office because the legal entity is a: Governmental Entity 15. Not Applicable 16. Not Applicable 17. Not Applicable 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
Contract #: 13715
Page 2 of 2
24
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13716 Legal Entity GNOMON INC Name: Contractor Name: GNOMON INC Address: 1601 FAIRVIEW DR STE F City/State/Zip CARSON CITY, NV 89701-5860
Contact/Phone: null775/885-2305 Vendor No.: T81005218 NV Business ID: NV19941043248 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % Agency Reference #: HD 13042 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of Yes or b. other effective date: Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date 09/2012 Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No NA
12/31/2012 121 days Contract AIDS Surveillance
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide technical assistance for the upgrade of the Nevada Electronic Review Database System (NERDS). NERDS allows users to review and verify electronic (encrypted) laboratory messages for HIV/AIDS cases and import them into the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) supported surveillance system (eHARS) for HIV. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $24,786.00 Other basis for payment: As invoiced for actual hours worked per staff, on each successfully completed deliverable, with payments made upon acceptance of completed deliverables, with a 10% holdback, until successful completion and acceptance of the project.
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? NERDS allows users to review and verify electronic laboratory messages for of HIV/AIDS cases and import them into the CDC supported surveillance system (eHARS) for HIV. Without NERDS, eHARS would auto import all of the electronic messages and not allow data entry staff the ability to review and edit messages therefore would lead to an excess of laboratory information into the surveillance system that was duplicate as well as laboratory messages that were not actually HIV/AIDS cases. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: The state does not have the expertise to upgrade the NERDS system, and tie it into a geo-coding environment. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited?
Contract #: 13716
Yes
Page 1 of 2 25
Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? This vendor represented the best response to the bid request at the best value to the state. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? Yes

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Contractor has performed under contract for the State Health Division with satisfactory results. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Nevada Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval DoIT Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User valpers valpers mtorvine cschmid2 lsmolya1 bberry nhovden Pending
Signature Date 08/01/2012 10:12:36 AM 08/01/2012 10:12:44 AM 08/08/2012 15:09:03 PM 08/08/2012 15:14:31 PM 08/10/2012 10:07:01 AM 08/10/2012 15:21:16 PM 08/21/2012 18:27:06 PM
Contract #: 13716
Page 2 of 2
25
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13063 Legal Entity BOARD OF REGENTS-UNR Name: Contractor Name: BOARD OF REGENTS-UNR Address: CONTROLLERS - CHILD/FAMILY RSH MAIL STOP 141 City/State/Zip RENO, NV 89557
Contact/Phone: null775/784-6762 Vendor No.: D35000845 NV Business ID: Governmental Entity To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2014 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % Agency Reference #: HD 12160 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of Yes or b. other effective date: Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date 09/2012 Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No NA
12/30/2013 1 year and 120 days Interlocal Agreement Home Visiting Svcs
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new interlocal agreement to expand evidence-based home visiting services, to promote maternal, infant and early childhood health, and safety, as well as the development of strong parent-child relationships. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $257,401.00 Other basis for payment: Payments invoiced monthly, based on number of primary enrollees, and number of visits conducted.
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? Federal Grant mandates the promotion of maternal, infant and early childhood health, and safety, as well as building upon existing State infrastructure with regard to existing home visiting programs currently being conducted throughout the State. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: The Health Division does not have the resources to perform this function. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable
c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Contracts are being awarded to all three bidding vendors, as they all meet the minimum federal home visitation criteria. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Health Division has used the University of Nevada, Reno on numerous occasions, with satisfactory results. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office because the legal entity is a: Governmental Entity 15. Not Applicable 16. Not Applicable 17. Not Applicable 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
Contract #: 13063
Page 2 of 2
26
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13057 Legal Entity SUNRISE CHILDRENS FOUNDATION Name: Contractor Name: SUNRISE CHILDRENS FOUNDATION Address: 2755 E DESERT INN RD STE 200 City/State/Zip LAS VEGAS, NV 89121-3638
Contact/Phone: null702/731-8373 Vendor No.: T80978244 NV Business ID: NV19931063050 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2014 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % Agency Reference #: HD 12158 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of Yes or b. other effective date: Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date 09/2012 Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No NA
12/30/2013 1 year and 120 days Contract Home Visiting Svcs
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new interlocal agreement to expand evidence-based home visiting services, to promote maternal, infant and early childhood health, and safety, as well as the development of strong parent-child relationships 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $354,054.00 Other basis for payment: Payments invoiced monthly, based on visits conducted, and number of enrollees.
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? Federal Grant mandates the promotion of maternal, infant and early childhood health, and safety, as well as building upon existing State infrastructure with regard to existing home visiting programs currently being conducted throughout the State. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: The Health Division does not have the resources to perform this function. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable
c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Contracts are being awarded to all three bidding vendors, as they all meet the minimum federal home visitation criteria. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? No If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Not Applicable 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Non-profit Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. Not Applicable 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
Signature Date 08/01/2012 10:24:02 AM 08/01/2012 10:24:08 AM 08/06/2012 08:57:47 AM 08/06/2012 09:15:03 AM 08/09/2012 09:37:08 AM 08/23/2012 10:51:53 AM
Contract #: 13057
Page 2 of 2
27
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13540 Legal Entity BOARD OF REGENTS-UNR Name: Contractor Name: BOARD OF REGENTS-UNR Address: City/State/Zip UNR CONTROLLERS OFFICE MAIL STOP 0124 RENO, NV 89557-0025
Agency Name:
WELFARE AND SUPPORT SERVICES Agency Code: 407 Appropriation Unit: 3228-42 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: null775/784-4062 Vendor No.: D35000816 NV Business ID: Gov't Entity To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2014 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 10/01/2012
09/30/2013 364 days Interlocal Agreement SNAP Education
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new interlocal agreement for the Division of Welfare and Supportive Service (DWSS), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to provide nutrition education to low income families. Through a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, DWSS collaborates with various public and non-profit agencies to provide education to SNAP recipients to improve the likelihood that recipients and those eligible for benefits will make healthy food choices. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $74,183.00 Other basis for payment: Actual per Invoice
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? Division of Welfare and Supportive Services receives a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to implement the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Nutrition Education (SNAP-Ed) to low income families in Nevada. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Division of Welfare and Supportive Services partners with various public and non profit agencies to provide nutrition education through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Nutrition Education (SNAP-Ed); therefore extending state resources and personnel. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing Division?
Contract #: 13540
No No
Page 1 of 2 28
a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Federal funding is provided from the USDA. All agencies that develop a plan that meets the requirements of the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program Nutrition Education (SNAP-Ed) and is approved by the USDA are incorporated into the State of Nevada plan as funding allows. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Currently under contract with DWSS and provides satisfactory service. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office because the legal entity is a: Governmental Entity 15. Not Applicable 16. Not Applicable 17. Not Applicable 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User tdufresn msmit5 mtorvine afrancis sbarkdul nhovden Pending
Signature Date 06/15/2012 17:46:58 PM 07/25/2012 07:39:42 AM 07/30/2012 16:42:38 PM 07/31/2012 14:00:07 PM 08/01/2012 09:12:27 AM 08/15/2012 17:46:51 PM
Contract #: 13540
Page 2 of 2
28
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13559 Legal Entity BOARD OF REGENTS-UNR Name: Contractor Name: BOARD OF REGENTS-UNR Address: City/State/Zip UNR CONTROLLERS OFFICE MAIL STOP 0124 RENO, NV 89557-0025
Agency Name:
II. JUSTIFICATION
Contract #: 13559
No No
Page 1 of 2 29

Contract #: 13559
Page 2 of 2
29
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13673 Legal Entity BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LAS VEGAS Name: Contractor Name: BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LAS VEGAS Address: City/State/Zip 2850 S LINDELL RD LAS VEGAS, NV 89146-6815
Agency Name:
Contact/Phone: null702/253-2808 Vendor No.: T80947631A NV Business ID: NV19611001462 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2014 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 10/01/2012
09/30/2013 364 days Contract SNAP Outreach
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract for the Division of Welfare and Supportive Service (DWSS), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to provide outreach and application assistance to low income and senior population of Nevada. Through a reimbursement program from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), DWSS collaborates with various public and non-profit agencies to reach out to eligible low-income people who are not currently participating in SNAP and assist with SNAP application completion. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $141,775.00 Other basis for payment: Actual per Invoice
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? Federal funding for SNAP Outreach is provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services. DWSS accomplishes SNAP Outreach by collaborating with various public and non-profit agencies. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Division of Welfare and Supportive Services partners with various non profit agencies to extend the outreach of the SNAP; therefore extending state resources and personnel. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three):
Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Federal funding is provided by the USDA, Food and Nutrition Services. All agencies that meet the requirements of the USDA Food and Nutrition Services guidelines, develop a plan that meets the needs of the target audience, and have their plan approved are incorporated into the State plan. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Currently under contract with DWSS and providing satisfactory service. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Non-profit Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. Not Applicable 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
Contract #: 13673
Page 2 of 2
30
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13674 Legal Entity CAPPALAPPA FAMILY RESOURCE Name: Contractor Name: CAPPALAPPA FAMILY RESOURCE Address: City/State/Zip CENTER PO BOX 1860 OVERTON, NV 89040-1860
Agency Name:
Contact/Phone: null702/397-6400 Vendor No.: T27005229 NV Business ID: NV20021249321 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2014 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 10/01/2012
II. JUSTIFICATION

Signature Date 07/19/2012 08:47:27 AM 07/25/2012 07:24:51 AM 07/30/2012 16:33:34 PM 07/31/2012 13:56:18 PM 08/01/2012 09:19:28 AM 08/15/2012 18:42:05 PM
Contract #: 13674
Page 2 of 2
31
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13513 Legal Entity DUCKWATER SHOSHONE TRIBE Name: Contractor Name: DUCKWATER SHOSHONE TRIBE Address: City/State/Zip PO BOX 140068 DUCKWATER, NV 89314-0068
Agency Name:
Contact/Phone: null775/863-0227 Vendor No.: T81070857A NV Business ID: Gov't Entity To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2014 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 10/01/2012
II. JUSTIFICATION
Contract #: 13513
No No
Page 1 of 2 32

Contract #: 13513
Page 2 of 2
32
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13675 Legal Entity EAST VALLEY FAMILY SERVICES Name: Contractor Name: EAST VALLEY FAMILY SERVICES Address: City/State/Zip 1800 E SAHARA AVE STE 111 LAS VEGAS, NV 89104-3732
Agency Name:
II. JUSTIFICATION

Signature Date 07/19/2012 08:46:07 AM 07/30/2012 14:21:26 PM 07/31/2012 10:10:08 AM 08/01/2012 08:50:35 AM 08/02/2012 11:30:17 AM 08/15/2012 17:57:13 PM
Contract #: 13675
Page 2 of 2
33
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13689 Legal Entity FAMILY TO FAMILY CONNECTION Name: Contractor Name: FAMILY TO FAMILY CONNECTION Address: LINCOLN COUNTY COMMNTY CONNECT PO BOX 46 CALIENTE, NV 89008
Agency Name: Agency Code:
WELFARE AND SUPPORT SERVICES 407
Appropriation Unit: 3228-44 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
City/State/Zip
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? Federal funding for SNAP Outreach is provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services. DWSS accomplishes SNAP Outreach by collaborating with various public and non-profit agencies. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Division of Welfare and Supportive Services partners with various non profit agencies to extend the outreach of the SNAP; therefore extending state resources and personnel. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing Division?
Contract #: 13689
No No
Page 1 of 2 34
a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Federal funding is provided by the USDA, Food and Nutrition Services. All agencies that meet the requirements of the USDA Food and Nutrition Services guidelines, develop a plan that meets the needs of the target audience, and have their plan approved are incorporated into the State plan. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

Contract #: 13689
Page 2 of 2
34
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13516 Legal Entity FOOD BANK OF NORTHERN NEVADA Name: Contractor Name: FOOD BANK OF NORTHERN NEVADA Address: City/State/Zip 550 ITALY DR MCCARRAN, NV 89434-5400
Agency Name:
09/30/2013 364 days Contract SNAP Education
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract for the Division of Welfare and Supportive Service (DWSS), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to provide nutrition education to low income families. Through a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, DWSS collaborates with various public and non-profit agencies to provide education to SNAP recipients to improve the likelihood that recipients and those eligible for benefits will make healthy food choices. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $40,737.00 Other basis for payment: Actual per Quarter
II. JUSTIFICATION
Contract #: 13516
No No
Page 1 of 2 35

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Currently under contract with DWSS and provides satisfactory service. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Non-profit Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. Not Applicable 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
Signature Date 06/15/2012 17:46:08 PM 07/10/2012 11:00:51 AM 07/13/2012 14:49:41 PM 07/16/2012 11:12:23 AM 08/01/2012 09:06:26 AM 08/15/2012 17:51:04 PM
Contract #: 13516
Page 2 of 2
35
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13610 Legal Entity FOOD BANK OF NORTHERN NEVADA Name: Contractor Name: FOOD BANK OF NORTHERN NEVADA Address: City/State/Zip 550 ITALY DR MCCARRAN, NV 89434-5400
Agency Name:
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract for the Division of Welfare and Supportive Service (DWSS), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), for a Community Partner Interviewers Demonstration Project. Through a waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), certain community partners can conduct initial SNAP interviews, which allows DWSS to reach populations that would otherwise be difficult to reach and saves State time and resources. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $224,220.00 Other basis for payment: Actual per Invoice
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? Division of Welfare and Supportive Services receives a cost share program from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide outreach and application assistance for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to the low income and senior population of Nevada. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Division of Welfare and Supportive Services partners with various non profit agencies to extend the outreach of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; therefore extending state resources and personnel. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three):

Contract #: 13610
Page 2 of 2
36
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13495 Legal Entity HELP OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Name: Contractor Name: HELP OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Address: City/State/Zip 1640 E FLAMINGO RD STE 100 LAS VEGAS, NV 89119-5280
Agency Name:
Contact/Phone: null702/369-4357 Vendor No.: T80351170C NV Business ID: NV19701000894 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2014 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 10/01/2012
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract for the Division of Welfare and Supportive Service (DWSS), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to provide nutrition education to low income families. Through a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, DWSS collaborates with various public and non-profit agencies to provide education to SNAP recipients to improve the likelihood that recipients and those eligible for benefits will make healthy food choices. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $56,770.00 Other basis for payment: Actual per Quarter
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? DWSS receives a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to implement the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Nutrition Education to low income families in Nevada. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: DWSS partners with various public and non profit agencies to provide nutrition education through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Nutrition Education; therefore extending state resources and personnel. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three):
Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Federal funding is provided from the USDA. All agencies that develop a plan that meets the requirements of the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program Nutrition Education (SNAP-Ed) and is approved by the USDA are incorporated into the State of Nevada plan as funding allows. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

Contract #: 13495
Page 2 of 2
37
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13613 Legal Entity HELP OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Name: Contractor Name: HELP OF SOUTHERN NEVADA Address: City/State/Zip 1640 E FLAMINGO RD STE 100 LAS VEGAS, NV 89119-5280
Agency Name:
Contact/Phone: null702/369-4357 Vendor No.: T80351170C NV Business ID: NV19701000894 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2014 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 10/01/2012
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract for the Division of Welfare and Supportive Service (DWSS), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), for a Community Partner Interviewers Demonstration Project. Through a waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), certain community partners can conduct initial SNAP interviews, which allows DWSS to reach populations that would otherwise be difficult to reach and saves State time and resources. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $214,841.00 Other basis for payment: Actual per Invoice
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? Division of Welfare and Supportive Services receives a cost share program from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide outreach and application assistance for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to the low income and senior population of Nevada. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Division of Welfare and Supportive Services partners with various non profit agencies to extend the outreach of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; therefore extending state resources and personnel. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three):

Contract #: 13613
Page 2 of 2
38
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13687 Legal Entity HENDERSON ALLIED COMMUNITY Name: ADVOCATES Contractor Name: HENDERSON ALLIED COMMUNITY ADVOCATES Address: HopeLink of Southern Nevada 178 WESTMINSTER WAY City/State/Zip HENDERSON, NV 89015
Agency Name:
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract for the Division of Welfare and Supportive Service (DWSS), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to provide outreach and application assistance to low income and senior population of Nevada. Through a reimbursement program from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), DWSS collaborates with various public and non-profit agencies to reach out to eligible low-income people who are not currently participating in SNAP and assist with SNAP application completion. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $66,600.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? Federal funding for SNAP Outreach is provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services. DWSS accomplishes SNAP Outreach by collaborating with various public and non-profit agencies. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Division of Welfare and Supportive Services partners with various non profit agencies to extend the outreach of the SNAP; therefore extending state resources and personnel. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable
b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Federal funding is provided by the USDA, Food and Nutrition Services. All agencies that meet the requirements of the USDA Food and Nutrition Services guidelines, develop a plan that meets the needs of the target audience, and have their plan approved are incorporated into the State plan. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

Contract #: 13687
Page 2 of 2
39
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13688 Legal Entity LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF NV Name: Contractor Name: LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF NV Address: City/State/Zip 73 SPECTRUM BLVD LAS VEGAS, NV 89101
Agency Name:
II. JUSTIFICATION

Contract #: 13688
Page 2 of 2
40
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13690 Legal Entity OLIVE CREST Name: Contractor Name: OLIVE CREST Address: City/State/Zip 2130 E 4TH ST STE 200 SANTA ANA, CA 92705-3818
Agency Name:
II. JUSTIFICATION

Contract #: 13690
Page 2 of 2
41
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13691 Legal Entity SALVATION ARMY, THE Name: Contractor Name: SALVATION ARMY, THE Address: City/State/Zip PO BOX 28369 LAS VEGAS, NV 89126-8369
Agency Name:
II. JUSTIFICATION

Contract #: 13691
Page 2 of 2
42
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13521 Legal Entity STEP 2 INC Name: Contractor Name: STEP 2 INC Address: City/State/Zip PO BOX 40674 RENO, NV 89504-4674
Agency Name:
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract for the Division of Welfare and Supportive Service (DWSS), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to provide nutrition education to low income families. Through a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, DWSS collaborates with various public and non-profit agencies to provide education to SNAP recipients to improve the likelihood that recipients and those eligible for benefits will make healthy food choices. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $10,458.00 Other basis for payment: Actual per Invoice
II. JUSTIFICATION
Contract #: 13521
No No
Page 1 of 2 43

Contract #: 13521
Page 2 of 2
43
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13532 Legal Entity TE MOAK TRIBE OF WESTERN Name: Contractor Name: TE MOAK TRIBE OF WESTERN Address: SHOSHONE/SPECIAL DIABETES PROG 525 SUNSET ST ELKO, NV 89801
Agency Name: Agency Code:
WELFARE AND SUPPORT SERVICES 407
Appropriation Unit: 3228-42 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
City/State/Zip
Contact/Phone: null775/738-9251 Vendor No.: T29008879 NV Business ID: Gov't Entity To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2014 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 10/01/2012
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? Division of Welfare and Supportive Services receives a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to implement the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Nutrition Education (SNAP-Ed) to low income families in Nevada. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Division of Welfare and Supportive Services partners with various public and non profit agencies to provide nutrition education through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Nutrition Education (SNAP-Ed) therefore extending state resources and personnel. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No
Contract #: 13532
Page 1 of 2
44
Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Federal funding is provided from the USDA. All agencies that develop a plan that meets the requirements of the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program Nutrition Education (SNAP-Ed) and is approved by the USDA are incorporated into the State of Nevada plan as funding allows. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

Contract #: 13532
Page 2 of 2
44
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13680 Legal Entity THREE SQUARE Name: Contractor Name: THREE SQUARE Address: City/State/Zip 4190 N PECOS RD LAS VEGAS, NV 89115-0187
Agency Name:
II. JUSTIFICATION

Contract #: 13680
Page 2 of 2
45
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13686 Legal Entity WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT Name: Contractor Name: WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT Address: ATTN BUSINESS OFFICE PO BOX 30425 City/State/Zip RENO, NV 89520-3425
Agency Name:
09/30/2013 364 days Interlocal Agreement SNAP Outreach
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new interlocal agreement for the Division of Welfare and Supportive Service (DWSS), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to provide outreach and application assistance to low income and senior population of Nevada. Through a reimbursement program from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), DWSS collaborates with various public and non-profit agencies to reach out to eligible low-income people who are not currently participating in SNAP and assist with SNAP application completion. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $56,455.00 Other basis for payment: Actual per Invoice
II. JUSTIFICATION

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? No If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Not Applicable 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office because the legal entity is a: Governmental Entity 15. Not Applicable 16. Not Applicable 17. Not Applicable 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
Contract #: 13686
Page 2 of 2
46
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13536 Legal Entity YERINGTON PAIUTE TRIBE COUNCIL Name: Contractor Name: YERINGTON PAIUTE TRIBE COUNCIL Address: City/State/Zip 171 CAMPBELL LN YERINGTON, NV 89447-9731
Agency Name:
II. JUSTIFICATION
Contract #: 13536
No No
Page 1 of 2 47

Contract #: 13536
Page 2 of 2
47
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13489 Legal Entity CLARK, COUNTY OF Name: Contractor Name: CLARK, COUNTY OF Address: City/State/Zip EIGHT JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 200 LEWIS AVE LAS VEGAS, NV 89155-0001
Agency Name:
Contact/Phone: null702/671-4615 Vendor No.: T81026920AH NV Business ID: Gov't Entity To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2017 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 90.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 10.00 % State Share of Collections 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 10/01/2012
09/30/2016 4 years Interlocal Agreement Access & Visitation
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new interlocal agreement for the Division of Welfare and Supportive Service (DWSS), Child Support Enforcement Program (CSEP), to provide mediation services, supervised visitation, and formulation of parenting plans. Through a grant from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, DWSS collaborates with the Second and Eighth Judicial District Courts to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents access to and visitation of their children by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pickup), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $304,000.00 Other basis for payment: Actual per Invoice
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? Public Law 104-193 Title III Subtitle I directs grants to states for access and visitation programs. The funding will be used to provide mediation services, supervised visitation, and formulate parenting plans and participation in other auxiliary services by the parties. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: States may enter into interlocal contracts to administer the CSEP, per 45 CFR 302.10; 45 CFR 302.34; 45 CFR 303.107. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited?
Contract #: 13489
No
Page 1 of 2 48

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Currently under contract with DWSS and providing satisfactory service. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office because the legal entity is a: Governmental Entity 15. Not Applicable 16. Not Applicable 17. Not Applicable 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
Contract #: 13489
Page 2 of 2
48
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 11669 Amendment 2 Number: Legal Entity TALX CORPORATION Name: Contractor Name: TALX CORPORATION Address: City/State/Zip THE WORK NUMBER 11432 LACKLAND RD SAINT LOUIS, MO 63146
Agency Name:
Contact/Phone: null314/214-7362 Vendor No.: T27017055A NV Business ID: NV20071210846 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2011-2013 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Previously Approved Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 02/01/2011
12/31/2012 1 year and 334 days Contract Eligilbility Determi
5. Purpose of contract: This is the second amendment to the original contract for the Division of Welfare and Supportive Services (DWSS), Child Support Enforcement Program to provide employment location and income verification of non-custodial parents in order to determine the ability to pay medical or child support and to enforce the support payment. This contract also provides income verification for the Eligibility and Payment unit to determine eligibility for the Federal Assistance Programs administered by DWSS, including Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid and Energy Assistance Program (EAP). This amendment revises consideration language by increasing the maximum from $9,756 to $12,466 to allow payment for services provided. 6. CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1. The maximum amount of the original contract: 2. Total amount of any previous contract amendments: 3. Amount of current contract amendment: 4. New maximum contract amount: $9,756.00 $0.00 $2,710.00 $12,466.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done?
Contract #: 11669
Page 1 of 3
49
Child Support Enforcement Program (CSEP) must identify the non-custodial parent's ability to pay a medical or child support obligation by locating and verifying gross monthly income from all sources and assets. CSEP enforcing authority is responsible for adequately investigating and determining an obligor's ability to pay child support and must recommend a reasonable obligation based on the results of the investigation. Additionally, Eligibility and Payments staff must determine if households meet established income limits for the Federal Assistance Programs administered by the agency. All income, including wages obtained through employment must be used to determine the actual benefit the household or individual is entitled to. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: State employees do not have the expertise or resources to provide this service. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? TALX Corporation was the only vendor who responded to the informal solicitation. d. Last bid date: 08/01/2009 Anticipated re-bid date: 08/01/2012 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Currently under contract with DWSS and providing satisfactory service. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Foreign Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval
Contract #: 11669
User tdufresn msmit5 mtorvine afrancis sbarkdul
Signature Date 07/05/2012 14:18:44 PM 07/17/2012 07:29:56 AM 07/19/2012 09:33:08 AM 07/20/2012 08:38:15 AM 08/01/2012 08:57:18 AM
Page 2 of 3 49
BOE Agenda Approval
nhovden
08/21/2012 18:10:18 PM
Contract #: 11669
Page 3 of 3
49
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13483 Legal Entity WASHOE, COUNTY OF Name: Contractor Name: WASHOE, COUNTY OF Address: City/State/Zip WASHOE SECOND JUDICIAL DIST CT 75 COURT ST RENO, NV 89501
Agency Name:
Contact/Phone: null775/328-3569 Vendor No.: T40283400Y NV Business ID: Gov't Entity To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2017 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 90.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 10.00 % State Share of Collections 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 08/2012 10/01/2012
09/30/2016 4 years Interlocal Agreement Access & Visitation
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new interlocal agreement for the Division of Welfare and Supportive Service (DWSS), Child Support Enforcement Program (CSEP), to provide mediation services, supervised visitation, and formulation of parenting plans. Through a grant from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, DWSS collaborates with the Second and Eighth Judicial District Courts to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents' access to and visitation of their children by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pickup), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $124,000.00 Other basis for payment: Actual per Invoice
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? Public Law 104-193 Title III Subtitle I directs grants to states for access and visitation programs. The funding will be used to provide mediation services, supervised visitation, and formulate parenting plans and participation in other auxiliary services by the parties. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: States may enter into interlocal contracts to administer the CSEP, per 45 CFR 302.10; 45 CFR 302.34; 45 CFR 303.107. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited?
Contract #: 13483
No
Page 1 of 2 50

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Currently under contract with DWSS and providing satisfactory service. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office because the legal entity is a: Governmental Entity 15. Not Applicable 16. Not Applicable 17. Not Applicable 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
Contract #: 13483
Page 2 of 2
50
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13619 Legal Entity HOUSING DIVISION Name: Contractor Name: HOUSING DIVISION Address: City/State/Zip DEPT OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRY 1535 OLD HOT SPRINGS RD STE 50 CARSON CITY, NV 89706
Agency Name:
09/30/2016 4 years Interlocal Agreement LIHEAP
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new interlocal agreement between the Division of Welfare and Supportive Service (DWSS), Energy Assistance Program (EAP) and the Department of Business and Industry, Housing Division, Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) to provide the Housing Division with 5% of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Block Grant funds awarded to DWSS to help fund weatherization assistance for low income families. WAP encourages and enables households to reduce their home energy needs by providing for various energy conservation measures, which decreases the need for energy assistance. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $1,902,800.00 Other basis for payment: 5% of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Block Grant funds.
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? DWSS is responsible for the administration of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Block Grant. Authorization for this grant is provided under CFR 45 Part 96 and CFR 10 Part 440. DWSS provides the Housing Division with 5% of this grant to help fund the Weatherization Assistance Program for low income families. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Department of Business and Industry, Housing Division is a state agency, which provides weatherization assistance to low income families. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No
Contract #: 13619
Page 1 of 2
51

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Contracted with DWSS from October 14, 2008 to September 30, 2010 and provided satisfactory service. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office because the legal entity is a: Governmental Entity 15. Not Applicable 16. Not Applicable 17. Not Applicable 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
Contract #: 13619
Page 2 of 2
51
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13678 Amendment 2 Number: Legal Entity Nevada State Health Laboratory Name: Contractor Name: Nevada State Health Laboratory Address: City/State/Zip 1660 North Virginia Street Reno , NV 89503
Agency Name:
MENTAL HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES Agency Code: 408 Appropriation Unit: 3162-04 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: null775-688-1335 Vendor No.: D35000816A NV Business ID: n/a To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. X General Funds 100.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Previously Approved Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 07/23/2012
06/30/2013 342 days Interlocal Agreement QuantiFERON-TB tests
5. Purpose of contract: This is the second amendment to the original contract which provides QuantiFeron-TB tests on Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services (NNAMHS) consumers at the request of authorized NNAMHS personnel. This amendment increases the total authority from $9,600.00 to $12,025.00, due to increased usage of this service by NNAMHS. 6. CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1. The maximum amount of the original contract: 2. Total amount of any previous contract amendments: 3. Amount of current contract amendment: 4. New maximum contract amount: $1,200.00 $8,400.00 $2,425.00 $12,025.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? Occasionally consumers refuse to allow PPD (TB) testing by NNAMHS staff. Rather than resorting to the use of DOR (Denial of Rights) to consumers, staff can request the work be done by NV State Health Laboratory staff, which would be agreeable for consumers 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: NNAMHS staff routinely perform these tests, however when consumers refuse to allow NNAMHS staff to perform this test, the use of the NV State Health Laboratory staff can be utilized.
9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Not chosen in preference to others, this is an interlocal contract between State agencies. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? Yes If "Yes", please explain This is an Interlocal Contract between State agencies 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? No If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Not Applicable 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office because the legal entity is a: Governmental Entity 15. Not Applicable 16. Not Applicable 17. Not Applicable 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval
User akenneso bchisel mtorvine cweil bberry nhovden
Contract #: 13678
Page 2 of 2
52
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 10929 Amendment 3 Number: Legal Entity PRN Systems Connect LLC Name: Contractor Name: PRN Systems Connect LLC Address: City/State/Zip 6771 W Charleston Blvd - Ste A Las Vegas, NV 89146
Agency Name:
MENTAL HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES Agency Code: 408 Appropriation Unit: 3162-40 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: null8777761774 Vendor No.: T29024137 NV Business ID: NV20061360317 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2010-2013 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. X General Funds 100.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Previously Approved Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 06/01/2010
12/31/2012 2 years and 214 days Contract Remote Chart Orders
5. Purpose of contract: This is the third amendment to the original contract which provides after hours remote chart order processing services. This amendment increases the total authority of the contract from $240,000 to $299.160. 6. CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1. The maximum amount of the original contract: 2. Total amount of any previous contract amendments: 3. Amount of current contract amendment: 4. New maximum contract amount: $240,000.00 $0.00 $59,160.00 $299,160.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? NAC 639.4911 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: This contract is for after hours, weekends and holidays chart ordering when agency pharmacist is not available 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing Yes Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three):
b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? This vendor offered the best program at the best price, as determined by the evaluation committee. The agency verified the vendor has a Nevada business license and is in good standing in all areas of the SOS's business requirements. d. Last bid date: 02/17/2010 Anticipated re-bid date: 11/29/2013 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: 2009 to present - NNAMHS - Satisfactory 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: LLC 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval
User akenneso rhage1 mtorvine cweil bberry nhovden
Contract #: 10929
Page 2 of 2
53
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 11477 Amendment 1 Number: Legal Entity Executive Pest Services, LLC Name: Contractor Name: Executive Pest Services, LLC Address: City/State/Zip P.O. Box 335153 No. Las Vegas, NV 89033
Agency Name:
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES DIVISION Agency Code: 409 Appropriation Unit: 3646-07 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: null702.321.9547 Vendor No.: T27020890 NV Business ID: NV20061525544 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2011-2015 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. X General Funds 43.30 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 53.50 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 3.20 % Private Insurance 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Previously Approved Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 10/12/2010
09/30/2012 3 years and 354 days Contract Pest Control
5. Purpose of contract: This is the first amendment to the original contract, which provides monthly pest control services for the office located at 6171 W. Charleston Blvd., Las Vegas. This amendment extends the termination date from September 30, 2012 to September 30, 2014 and increases the maximum amount from $17,640.00 to $35,280.00 due to the continued need for these services. 6. CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1. The maximum amount of the original contract: 2. Total amount of any previous contract amendments: 3. Amount of current contract amendment: 4. New maximum contract amount: and/or the termination date of the original contract has changed to: $17,640.00 $0.00 $17,640.00 $35,280.00 09/30/2014
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? For the health and safety of staff, residents and families. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: The Division of Child and Family services does not have the equipment and/or licensing necessary. No other State agency provides these services.
9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Because of consistency of price with Executive Pest, one flat fee for any amount of call backs. Preventive wanted $99 for bed bug and german roach call backs per room and that would not have been cost effective for this location. d. Last bid date: 09/01/2010 Anticipated re-bid date: 09/01/2014 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: FY09 - current; Division of Child and Family Services. Service has been satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Nevada Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval
User dkluever dkluever mtorvine cphenix eobrien nhovden
Contract #: 11477
Page 2 of 2
54
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13747 Legal Entity EM-Assist Name: Contractor Name: EM-Assist Address: City/State/Zip 90 Blue Ravine Road Suite 180 Folsom, CA 95630
Agency Name:
ADJUTANT GENERAL & NATL GUARD Agency Code: 431 Appropriation Unit: 3650-16 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: Lynn Meland 916/355-1248 Vendor No.: NV Business ID: NV20121352621 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2017 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 09/18/2012
09/18/2016 4 years and 1 day Contract Environmental WBT
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to develop and configure Web Based Training (WBT) courses that address the Nevada Army National Guard Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan as mandated. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $78,351.84
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? Development and configuration of Web Based Training (WBT) courses that address the NVARNG Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan as mandated by 40 CFR Part 112 and Hazardous Waste Management are needed. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: We do not have the equipment or expertise to complete this work. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other?
This Vendor was selected by Evaluation Committee for having the highest score based on the following criteria: Demonstrated Competence, Experience in performance of comparable engagements, Expertise and availability of key personnel, Conformance with the terms of the RFP, Reasonableness of cost and Financial Stability. d. Last bid date: 07/10/2012 Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? No If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Not Applicable 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Foreign Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User bhernan2 jmcentee jmcentee bhernan2 jborrowm jborrowm Pending
Signature Date 08/07/2012 17:37:22 PM 08/08/2012 07:22:14 AM 08/08/2012 07:22:17 AM 08/08/2012 17:24:58 PM 08/22/2012 13:33:51 PM 08/22/2012 13:33:59 PM
Contract #: 13747
Page 2 of 2
55
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13755 Legal Entity HERSHENOW & KLIPPENSTEIN Name: Contractor Name: HERSHENOW & KLIPPENSTEIN Address: City/State/Zip ARCHITECTS INC 5485 RENO CORPORATE DR STE 100 RENO, NV 89511-2262
Agency Name:
ADJUTANT GENERAL & NATL GUARD Agency Code: 431 Appropriation Unit: 3650-10 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: Max Hershenow 775/332-6640 Vendor No.: T80984709 NV Business ID: NV19941047730 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 09/12/2012
06/12/2013 273 days Contract NLVRC Furnishings
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide architectural and electrical engineering services, project management and furnishing selection consulting for the North Las Vegas Readiness Center (NLVRC). 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $60,000.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? This project involves selections needed to meet unique design features and electrical designed for energy savings. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: The architect has the expertise to complete the project. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? This architect designed the building.
d. Last bid date:

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: This contractor has done previous work for the Office of the Military as well as other agencies. All work has been satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Nevada Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User bhernan2 jmcentee jmcentee bhernan2 jborrowm jborrowm Pending
Contract #: 13755
Page 2 of 2
56
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 11085 Amendment Number: Legal Entity Name: Contractor Name: Address: City/State/Zip 2 AMERICAN BENEFIT PLAN ADMINISTRATORS, INC. AMERICAN BENEFIT PLAN ADMINISTRATORS, INC. 1830 E SAHARA AVE STE 111 LAS VEGAS, NV 89104
Agency Name:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Contact/Phone: Kathie Pittman 702.347.5835 Vendor No.: T81020300A NV Business ID: NV19941053965 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2011-2014 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. X General Funds 100.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Previously Approved Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 08/2012 07/01/2010
06/30/2014 4 years Contract Third Party Admin.
5. Purpose of contract: This is the second amendment to the original contract, which provides third party administration (TPA) services to manage the payment of medical and dental claims to providers not employed by the Department of Corrections. This amendment increases the contract amount from $815,700 to $1,606,365 due to the contract extension for these services through June 30, 2014. 6. CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1. The maximum amount of the original contract: 2. Total amount of any previous contract amendments: 3. Amount of current contract amendment: 4. New maximum contract amount: $815,700.00 $0.00 $790,665.00 $1,606,365.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) provides federally mandated medical care to incarcerated individuals within the correctional system. NDOC requires third party administration services to manage the payment of claims to the medical providers not employed by the Department. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: The Department does not have the personnel, expertise and/or equipment necessary. No other State agency provides these services.
9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing Yes Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? They scored the highest based on the pre-determined evaluation criteria and weights. d. Last bid date: 02/06/2010 Anticipated re-bid date: 02/06/2014 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: FY07 - current; Nevada Department of Corrections. Service has been verified as satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Foreign Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval
User bfarris bfarris dreed drosenbe sbrown sbrown
Contract #: 11085
Page 2 of 2
57
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13633 Legal Entity Bryant's Electronic Servicing & Testing Name: Contractor Name: Bryant's Electronic Servicing & Testing Address: 33 Quail Lane City/State/Zip Bishop, CA 93514
Agency Name:
Contact/Phone: null760-872-4620 Vendor No.: NV Business ID: NV20101558074 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2016 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. X General Funds 100.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of Yes or b. other effective date: Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date 09/2012 Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No NA
06/30/2016 3 years and 303 days Contract Equipment Testing
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide semi-annual, preventative maintenance service on medical equipment located at the following correctional facilities: Ely State Prison, Jean Conservation Camp, Florence McClure Women's Correctional Center, High Desert State Prison, Lovelock Correctional Center, Warm Springs Correctional Center, Southern Desert Correctional Center, Northern Nevada Correctional Center. Services are to include: on-site inspections, calibration of equipment, routine maintenance and in-service training to staff as necessary. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $83,250.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? To preserve State property and for the health and safety of staff and inmates. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Department of Corrections employees do not have the expertise and/ or the equipment necessary. No other State agency provides these services. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three):
Contract #: 13633
Page 1 of 2
58
b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? They were the only proposal received. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: FY09 thru FY 12, Department of Corrections. Service has been verified as satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office because the legal entity is a: Sole Proprietor 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? No b. If "No", is an exemption on file with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 17. Not Applicable 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User bfarris bfarris dreed mvarne1 cmurph3 sbrown Pending
Contract #: 13633
Page 2 of 2
58
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13698 Legal Entity Scroll K/ Vaad Hakashrus Name: Contractor Name: Scroll K/ Vaad Hakashrus Address: 1350 Vrain St. City/State/Zip Contact/Phone: Denver, CO 80204 Rabbi Yisroel Rosskamm/Moshe Heisler 303-595-9349
Agency Name: DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Agency Code: 440 Appropriation Unit: 3710-04 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Vendor No.: NV Business ID: NV20121448512 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2016 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. X General Funds 100.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date or b. other effective date 09/2012 07/23/2012
Retroactive? Yes If "Yes", please explain This contract is a result of a court negotiated settlement/order. The services of the Scroll K/Vaad Hakashrus are needed before the settlement is final, therefore a retroactive contract is needed. 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: 06/30/2016 3 years and 343 days Contract Kosher Food Cert.
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide koshering of Common Fare kitchens and ongoing rabbinical supervision of kosher food preparation at the following NDOC Institutions: Northern Nevada Correctional Center, Lovelock Correctional Center, Ely State Prison, Florence McClure Women's Correctional Center, High Desert State Prison and Southern Desert Correcctional Center. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $387,308.41 Other basis for payment: FY13 $95,255.42, FY14 $96,257.75, FY15 $97,339.14, FY16 $98,456.10
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? The Department must provide Kosher certified food to Jewish inmates. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: The Department of Corrections does not have the staff, expertise, or authorization to perform these tasks. No other State agency offers these services. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three):
Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Sole Source Contract (As Approved by Chief of Purchasing) Approval #: 120614 Approval Date: 06/28/2012 c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? This vendor was chosen as a result of a court negotiated settlement. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

User bfarris bfarris dreed drosenbe cmurph3 sbrown Pending
Contract #: 13698
Page 2 of 2
59
STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: FROM: SUBJECT:
Colleen Murphy, Budget Analyst IV
DATE: 8/6/12
Dawn Rosenberg, Chief of Purchasing/Inmate Services Retro-active Contract Scroll K/Vaad Hakashrus
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
The contract between Scroll K/Vaad Hakashrus and Department of Corrections is retroactive to July 23, 2012, in order to support kosher certified food/meals to our Jewish inmates. As a result of a court negotiated settlement (U.S. District Court Case no. 2:11-cv00883-GMN-PAL Howard Ackerman vs. Department of Corrections), the parties jointly agreed that Scroll K/Vaad Hakashrus, currently under contract with the Colorado Department of Corrections, met the requirements. This requires ongoing supervision, certification and required inspections by qualified staff at Scroll K/Vaad Hakashrus. The services of Scroll K/Vaad Hakashrus are needed before the settlement is final, therefore a retroactive contract is needed. If you have any questions regarding this contract please contact me at (775) 887-3219. Your consideration is appreciated.
59
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 12723 Amendment Number: Legal Entity Name: Contractor Name: Address: City/State/Zip 2 Westcare Nevada, Inc (WC-NV) Westcare Nevada, Inc (WC-NV) 401 S. Martin Luther King Blvd Las Vegas, NV 89106
Contact/Phone: Kevin Morss 702.385.3642 Vendor No.: T80928668 NV Business ID: NV19811004704 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2012-2013 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. X General Funds 39.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 61.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Previously Approved Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 11/08/2011
09/30/2012 1 year and 234 days Contract Correctional Program
5. Purpose of contract: This is the second amendment to the original contract which provides pre and post release services to incarcerated inmates for the Second Chance Adult Re-Entry Demonstration Project (SCARDP), which is designed to reduce recidivism by helping offenders find work and access other critical services in their communities upon their release. This amendment extends the termination date from September 30, 2012 to Jue 30, 2013 and increases the maximum amount of the contract from $360,637.91 to $592,869.91 due to the extendsion of services to additional inmates/exoffenders. 6. CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1. The maximum amount of the original contract: 2. Total amount of any previous contract amendments: 3. Amount of current contract amendment: 4. New maximum contract amount: and/or the termination date of the original contract has changed to: $348,667.94 $11,969.97 $232,232.00 $592,869.91 06/30/2013
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? NDOC received Federal grant money under the Second Chance Adult Re-Entry Demonstration Project, which is designed to provide funding to state units of governments to develop and implement institutional and community corrections-based offender re-entry programs. The contract is in compliance with the requirements of the grant. Services provided through this contract will be extended to other inmates/ex-offenders that would benefit from the services offered within the new extended time period.
8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: NDOC does not have the expertise and/or qualifications to provide these services. No other agency offers this type of service. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing Yes Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? The evaluation committee scored them highest based on predetermined criteria and weights. d. Last bid date: 06/30/2011 Anticipated re-bid date: 06/30/2015 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: FY12; Health & Human Services, Division of Child and Family Services. Services have been verified as satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Non-profit Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. Not Applicable 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval
User dmartine bfarris bfarris drosenbe cmurph3 sbrown
Signature Date 07/27/2012 12:41:54 PM 07/30/2012 07:41:57 AM 07/30/2012 07:42:29 AM 08/07/2012 12:04:46 PM 08/08/2012 14:31:22 PM 08/09/2012 12:47:56 PM
Contract #: 12723
Page 2 of 2
60
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13707 Legal Entity Wisan, Smith, Racker & Prescott, LLP Name: Contractor Name: Wisan, Smith, Racker & Prescott, LLP Address: 155 North 400 West, Suite 400 City/State/Zip Salt Lake City, UT 84103
Contact/Phone: Macray Curtis, CPA (801)9313851 Vendor No.: NV Business ID: NV20091403644 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 100.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of Yes or b. other effective date: Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date 09/2012 Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No NA
12/05/2012 95 days Provider Agreement Audit of BLM program
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide audits by an independent CPA firm in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards covering financial audits. The BLM program-specific five-year period audit conducted for Silver State Industries in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 75017507) and revised OMB Circular A-133. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $14,479.00 Other basis for payment: Director $150 per hr, Partner $210 per hr, In-Charge $125 per hr, Staff $120 per hr, out-of-pocket costs $175
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? Non-Federal entities that expend $500,000 or more during a year in Federal awards shall have a program-specific audit conducted for that year in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 7501-7507) and revised OMB Circular A-133. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Audit relquirements state that audits shall be conducted by an independent auditor. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three):
b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? This vendor was willing to conduct this type of audit and for the lowest price. d. Last bid date: 06/21/2012 Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? No If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Not Applicable 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: LLP 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User ddastal ddastal ddastal ddastal cmurph3 sbrown Pending
Contract #: 13707
Page 2 of 2
61
61
61
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13710 Legal Entity Western Exterminator Company Name: Contractor Name: Western Exterminator Company Address: 2943 E. Alexander Rd City/State/Zip N. Las Vegas, NV 89030
07/30/2016 3 years and 333 days Contract Pest Control Service
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide regular scheduled pest control services at the following correctional facilities: Carlin Conservation Camp (CCC), Humbolt Conservation Camp (HCC), Lovelock Correctional Center (LCC) and Wells Conservation Camp (WCC). 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $56,012.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? For the health and safety of staff and inmates. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: NDOC employees do not have the expertise and or equipment necessary to provide pest control services. No other State agency offers these services. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Western Exterminator had the lowest bid
d. Last bid date:

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: FY08 -FY12; Department of Corrections. Service has been verified as satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Foreign Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User ssergent bfarris dreed mvarne1 cmurph3 sbrown Pending
Signature Date 08/01/2012 15:44:50 PM 08/02/2012 09:04:21 AM 08/02/2012 11:26:48 AM 08/08/2012 09:13:03 AM 08/08/2012 15:09:30 PM 08/09/2012 13:00:10 PM
Contract #: 13710
Page 2 of 2
62
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13677 Legal Entity Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, Name: Inc Contractor Name: Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, Inc Address: 1380 Greg St, Suite 224 City/State/Zip Sparks, NV 89431
Agency Name:
06/30/2016 3 years and 303 days Contract Temp Control PM
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to perform preventative maintenance service on the Network 800 Direct Digital/ LON temperature control system at Lovelock Correctional Center. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $156,440.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? To preserve State property and for the health and safety of staff and inmates. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: The Department of Corrections does not currently have enough qualified personnel and/or the equipment necessary to perform these services. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? They were the only proposal received.
d. Last bid date:

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: FY 11 - Current; The Department of Corrections. Service has been verified as satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Foreign Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? No b. If "No", is an exemption on file with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User ssergent bfarris dreed mvarne1 sbrown sbrown Pending
Signature Date 07/17/2012 14:24:25 PM 07/24/2012 10:19:44 AM 07/25/2012 13:34:03 PM 08/16/2012 15:28:02 PM 08/20/2012 12:36:34 PM 08/20/2012 12:36:38 PM
Contract #: 13677
Page 2 of 2
63
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13620 Legal Entity W.W.Williams Southwest, Inc Name: Contractor Name: W.W.Williams Southwest, Inc Address: 2680 Losee Road City/State/Zip North Las Vegas, NV 89030
06/30/2016 3 years and 334 days Contract Generator PM
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide preventative maintenance services on the generators located at High Desert State Prison (HDSP), Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC), Southern Nevada Correctional Center (SNCC), Florence McClure Womens Correctional Center (FMWCC) and Jean Conservation Camp (JCC). 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $86,034.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? For the health and safety of staff and inmates. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: The Department of Corrections does not have the expertise and/or equipment necessary. No other State agency offers these services. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other?
W.W.Wiliams Southwest, Inc had the most cost effective proposal and demonstrated that they are able to best meet the needs of the Department. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: FY 12, Department of Corrections. Services have been verified as satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Foreign Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User ssergent bfarris dreed mvarne1 sbrown sbrown Pending
Contract #: 13620
Page 2 of 2
64
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13708 Legal Entity F.A.A.D. Janitorial Name: Contractor Name: F.A.A.D. Janitorial Address: 52 Glen Carran Circle City/State/Zip Sparks, NV 89431
Agency Name: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agency Code: 550 Appropriation Unit: 4554-04 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: Amy de Roode 775-351-2405 Vendor No.: T27017486 NV Business ID: NV20041538232 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2014 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 100.00 % Funds are Cost Allocated 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 08/2012 09/11/2012
08/31/2013 354 days Contract Janitorial Service
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide ongoing janitorial services at the department's headquarters and laboratories. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $24,900.00 Payment for services will be made at the rate of $1,995.00 per month Other basis for payment: Plus $6.60 per month for each additional employee added during SFY13.
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? To provide a clean, safe and healthy workplace at the Sparks Headquarters and laboratories. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: It would be inefficient for the professional staff to vary from their job responsibilitues to provide janitorial services. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? The vendors bid was competitive and detailed to provide a good understanding of their proposal.
d. Last bid date:
06/01/2011
07/01/2013

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: DMV Carson City DMV Greg St. Reno DETR Fallon Nevada Historical Society 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Nevada Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User jmccuin jmccuin jmccuin mwhitney kkolbe cwatson Pending
Contract #: 13708
Page 2 of 2
65
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13746 Legal Entity Evidence Control Systems, Inc. Name: Contractor Name: Evidence Control Systems, Inc. Address: 370 W. Lutge Avenue City/State/Zip Burbank, CA 91506
Agency Name: DPS-DIRECTOR'S OFFICE Agency Code: 650 Appropriation Unit: 4703-28 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: Joe Latta 818-846-2963 Vendor No.: NV Business ID: NV20121446012 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 100.00 % Forfeitures 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of Yes or b. other effective date: Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date 09/2012 Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No NA
03/31/2013 211 days Contract Evidence Review
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide for a comprehensive property and evidence process review for the Director's Office of the Department of Public Safety. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $68,900.00 Other basis for payment: full payment upon completion of review and acceptance by DPS
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? On January 1, 2011, the DPS evidence function was centralized and moved under the direction of the Director's Office. Because the function is now centralized under a single chain of command, it is critical for the statewide Evidence Unit to operate consistently and in accordance with industry best practices. This contract will provide for a review and evaluation of current DPS processes and report that describes any deficiencies and proposed solutions. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Neither DPS employees nor employees of other state agencies have sufficient knowledge of and experience with industry best practices to provide a useful review and evaluation. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three):
Contract #: 13746
Page 1 of 2
66
b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? This vendor was the only one who submitted a proposal in repsonse to the DPS RFP. d. Last bid date: 06/22/2012 Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

User mteska mteska mteska jbauer jstrandb cwatson Pending
Contract #: 13746
Page 2 of 2
66
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13685 Legal Entity Utility Services, Inc. Name: Contractor Name: Utility Services, Inc. Address: P.O. Box 310 City/State/Zip Waterbury, VT 05676
Agency Name: COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION Agency Code: 690 Appropriation Unit: All Budget Accounts - Category 04 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: Brian Evans-Mongeon 802-552-4022 Vendor No.: USI NV Business ID: 2722-31359 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2016 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 100.00 % Power Sales Revenue 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of Yes or b. other effective date: Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date 09/2012 Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No NA
09/30/2015 3 years and 29 days Contract WECC Review
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to conduct a Western Electric Coordinating Council (WECC) readiness review or 'mock audit' of the Commission's electrical systems documentation prior to an actual WECC audit. As an entity with physical interconnections to the regional high voltage electric grid, the Commission is required to adhere to certain reliability standards. These standards are promulgated and enforced by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and its western regional entity, WECC. Entities that are found to be in violation of these standards are subject to penalties and enforcement action. Entities are subject to periodic audits and the Commission anticipates that it will be audited for the first time in 2013. The review will examine the Commission's compliance documentation for completeness, examine the Internal Compliance Program and make suggestions related to these issues. In addition, the contractor will assist the Commission during the audit as needed. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $24,000.00 Other basis for payment: $8,000 for the initial audit review plus travel expenses estimted at $1,500; time materials for additional work and assistance during the actual audit at published hourly rate.
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? The Commission will be subject to it first WECC compliance audit in calendar 2013. These audits are relatively new and the Commission requires assistance from the vendor to provide a pre-audit review to ensure compliance with the WECC audit and requires assistance during the audit. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work:
Contract #: 13685
Page 1 of 2
67
This is the first audit of its type to which the Commission has been subject. Due the the complete lack of experience with this audit the agency has no expertise related to such an audit. No other state agency is subject to WECC and thus cannot provide the needed assistance. Due to the newness of these audits, adequate experience is very limited even with outside parties. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Lowest qualified responsive bid. d. Last bid date: 05/23/2012 Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

User dbeatty dbeatty dbeatty dbeatty jborrowm jborrowm Pending
Contract #: 13685
Page 2 of 2
67
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: CONV6688 Amendment Number: Legal Entity Name: Contractor Name: Address: City/State/Zip 3 U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Western Ecological Rsch Ctr 3020 State University Dr. East Sacramento, CA 98519
Agency Name: WILDLIFE DIVISION Agency Code: 702 Appropriation Unit: 4457-28 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: Frank DiMora 9162789480 Vendor No.: PUR0000332D NV Business ID: N/A To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2009-2013 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 75.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 25.00 % Upland Game Stamps Agency Reference #: 09-52 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Previously Approved Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 12/09/2008
12/31/2012 4 years and 23 days Interlocal Agreement Educational Services
5. Purpose of contract: This is the third amendment to the original interlocal agreement for investigation related to sage-grouse habitat preferences within the Virginia Mountains in Washoe County. Habitat within this area has been subjected to wildfire; transmission line development; some suburban development and subsidized predation; and it is important to understand the long-term impacts of these perturbations. Tasks that will be performed include capturing, outfitting with telemetry collars, tracking, physical measurements, identifying predators, etc. The department is working to prevent sage-grouse from becoming listed as an endangered species, which would result in additional federal regulations and negative impacts on development. This work can result in better sage-grouse management practices. This amendment increases the maximum amount from $117,600 to $167,600 to fund additional work of the same nature as under the original contract. 6. CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1. The maximum amount of the original contract: 2. Total amount of any previous contract amendments: 3. Amount of current contract amendment: 4. New maximum contract amount: $30,000.00 $87,600.00 $50,000.00 $167,600.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done?
Contract #: CONV6688
Page 1 of 3
68
The Greater Sage-grouse has been found to be "warranted, but precluded" for listing under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sage-grouse populations in Nevada have been reduced due to a variety of factors including wildfire, invasive species (weeds), pinyon and juniper encroachment, improper livestock grazing practices, wild horse overutilization, urbanization and infrastructure development. Research efforts on the sage-grouse population within the Virginia Mountains area of southern Washoe County allows us to investigate many of these factors and their effects on this particular sage-grouse population. Results can help with more appropriate management practices for larger populations of sage-grouse within Nevada and the Great Basin. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: The Nevada Department of Wildlife does not have adequate staffing within a designated research branch to be able to conduct this amount of work. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Interlocal contract. U.S. Geological Survey is a government agency that has conducted similar research projects (including this one since December, 2009). d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: The U.S. Geological Survey has recently been under contract with the Nevada Department of Transportation and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, as well as the Nevada Department of Wildlife. Work has been satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office because the legal entity is a: Governmental Entity 15. Not Applicable 16. Not Applicable 17. Not Applicable 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval
User mkrumena mkrumena mkrumena mkrumena
Signature Date 07/27/2012 10:46:59 AM 07/27/2012 10:47:01 AM 07/27/2012 10:47:04 AM 07/27/2012 10:47:07 AM
Page 2 of 3 68
Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval
kkolbe cwatson
08/03/2012 15:23:12 PM 08/17/2012 09:04:59 AM
Page 3 of 3
68
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13735 Legal Entity READE & ASSOCIATES Name: Contractor Name: R CHRISTOPHER READE CHTD. Address: 1333 NORTH BUFFALO DRIVE SUITE 210 City/State/Zip LAS VEGAS, NV 89128
Agency Name: BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY Agency Code: 740 Appropriation Unit: 4681-15 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: ANGELA H. DOWS 702-794-4411 Vendor No.: T29022061 NV Business ID: NV20041538428 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 100.00 % Morgan Stanley Settlement Funds 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 09/11/2012
06/30/2013 292 days Contract Admin Law Judge
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Hearing Officer, or Impartial Referee services in formal and informal evidentiary hearings. The hearings involve contested cases under Nevada Administrative Procedure Act Chapter 233B of Nevada Revised Statues, and other hearing and/or Alternative Dispute Resolution statues that are applicable to the department and its divisions. The ALJ will 1) preside over hearings and appeals 2) ensure the development of a complete and accurate record of the proceedings and 3) render proposed decisions, rulings, or orders based on the proceedings. The ALJ will provide a resource for timely, impartial, and objective adjudication of administrative actions for certain divisions with the Nevada Department of Business and Industry. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $133,301.00 Payment for services will be made at the rate of $100.00 per hour Other basis for payment: Contractor shall bill in 1/10th of an hr increments; Proceedings under NRS 116.625 shall not exceed $400 without pre approval. All other proceedings amount billed shall not exceed $800 without preapproval of the contract monitor. Travel shall be reimbursed after pre-approval of the contract monitor. Travel time is not billable.
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? Independent third party resolution of appeals and disputes NRS 116.625, 232.548,604A,604B,645A,645B,645E,645F,649,657-671, and 673-678 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work:
Necessary to have neutral fact-finder and decision maker in appeals and disputes under NRS 116.625, 232.548,604A,604B,645A,645B,645E,645F,649,657-671, and 673-678
9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Professional Service (As defined in NAC 333.150) c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Based on selection criteria published in the contract announcement, the candidate was interviewed and possessed the required experience, education and skills to perform the essential functions as outlined in the Scope of Work to act as a neutral fact-finder and decision maker in appeals and disputes under NRS 116.625, 232.548,604A,604B,645A,645B,645E,645F,649,657-671, and 673-678 for certain Divisions within the Department of Business and Industry. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Supreme Court-2010-Satisfactory 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Nevada Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? No b. If "No", please explain: COMMERCIAL REGISTERED AGENT-OTHER 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval
Contract #: 13735
User dburn4 dburn4 lfiguero dburn4
Signature Date 08/04/2012 08:38:51 AM 08/04/2012 08:38:57 AM 08/15/2012 13:06:25 PM 08/15/2012 13:22:09 PM
Page 2 of 3 69
Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
sbarkdul nhovden Pending
08/15/2012 15:48:03 PM 08/15/2012 16:43:20 PM
Contract #: 13735
Page 3 of 3
69
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13772 Legal Entity SAMUEL THOMPSON Name: Contractor Name: SAMUEL THOMPSON Address: 10417 WELLINGTON MANOR AVENUE City/State/Zip LAS VEGAS, NV 89129
Agency Name: BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY Agency Code: 740 Appropriation Unit: 4681-15 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: null702-515-0467 Vendor No.: T29030908 NV Business ID: APPLIED FOR To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 100.00 % Morgan Stanley Settlement Funds 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 09/11/2012
06/30/2013 292 days Provider Agreement Admin Law Judge
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Hearing Officer, or Impartial Referee services in formal and informal evidentiary hearings. The hearings involve contested cases under Nevada Administrative Procedure Act Chapter 233B of Nevada Revised Statues, and other hearing and/or Alternative Dispute Resolution statues that are applicable to the department and its divisions. The ALJ will 1) preside over hearings and appeals 2) ensure the development of a complete and accurate record of the proceedings and 3) render proposed decisions, rulings, or orders based on the proceedings. The ALJ will provide a resource for timely, impartial, and objective adjudication of administrative actions for certain divisions with the Nevada Department of Business and Industry. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $133,301.00 Payment for services will be made at the rate of $100.00 per hour Other basis for payment: Contractor shall bill in 1/10th of an hr increments; Proceedings under NRS 116.625 shall not exceed $400 without pre approval. All other proceedings amount billed shall not exceed $800 without preapproval of the contract monitor. Travel shall be reimbursed after pre-approval of the contract monitor. Travel time is not billable.
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? Independent third party resolution of appeals and disputes NRS 116.625, 232.548,604A,604B,645A,645B,645E,645F,649,657-671, and 673-678 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work:
Necessary to have neutral fact-finder and decision maker in appeals and disputes under NRS 116.625, 232.548,604A,604B,645A,645B,645E,645F,649,657-671, and 673-678
9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Professional Service (As defined in NAC 333.150) c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Based on selection criteria published in the contract announcement, the candidate was interviewed and possessed the required experience, education and skills to perform the essential functions as outlined in the Scope of Work to act as a neutral fact-finder and decision maker in appeals and disputes under NRS 116.625, 232.548,604A,604B,645A,645B,645E,645F,649,657-671, and 673-678 for certain Divisions within the Department of Business and Industry. d. Last bid date: 06/18/2012 Anticipated re-bid date: 06/30/2013 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? Yes See the attached Authorization to Contract form for details. c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? No If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Not Applicable 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office because the legal entity is a: Sole Proprietor 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? No b. If "No", is an exemption on file with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 17. Not Applicable 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval
Contract #: 13772
User dburn4 dburn4 lfiguero dburn4
Signature Date 08/15/2012 09:44:41 AM 08/15/2012 09:44:48 AM 08/15/2012 11:30:03 AM 08/15/2012 13:16:06 PM
Page 2 of 3 70
Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
sbarkdul nhovden Pending
08/23/2012 11:19:02 AM 08/23/2012 16:05:49 PM
Contract #: 13772
Page 3 of 3
70
70
70
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13744 Legal Entity NEVADA INSURANCE GUARANTY Name: Contractor Name: NEVADA INSURANCE GUARANTY Address: ASSOCIATION 3821 W CHARLESTON BLVD STE 100 City/State/Zip LAS VEGAS, NV 89102
Agency Name: INSURANCE DIVISION Agency Code: 741 Appropriation Unit: 3802-10 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: BRUCE GILBERT 702/368-0607 Vendor No.: T29008583 NV Business ID: 88-0134332 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2017 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 100.00 % INSOLVENCY ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED FROM SELF-INSURED EMPLOYERS AND ASSOCIATIONS 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 10/2012 01/01/2013
12/31/2016 4 years Contract Professional Service
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract which provides administration of claims when a self-insured employer or association of selfinsured employers becomes insolvent. In addition, it consolidates administrative activity and avoids duplication of expenses incurred by eliminating the use of multiple Third Party Administrators. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $550,000.00 Payment for services will be made at the rate of $45.00 per hour/admin services Other basis for payment: $100/hour professional/managerial services, $875/per 18 month term for open indemnity files, $250/per 18 month term for open medical file
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? The administration of workers' compensation claims when self-insured employer or association of self-insured employers becomes insolvent. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: The Self-Insured Workers' Compensation Section oversees these transactions and it would be a conflict of interest. The Division of Insurance does not have the expertise and the manpower to administer claims nor the facility for long-term record storage. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited?
Contract #: 13744
No
Page 1 of 3 71
Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Sole Source Contract (As Approved by Chief of Purchasing) Approval #: 120704 Approval Date: 07/09/2012 c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? In passing AB338, the 2005 Legislative Session specifically authorized NIGA to perform these administrative services. Only NIGA is so authorized in statute (NRS 687A.060). d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 01/01/2016 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: NIGA has been under contract to Division of Insurance since April 2006 and has been verified as satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office because the legal entity is a: Other NOT FOR PROFIT STATUTORY ENTITY 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? No b. If "No", is an exemption on file with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? No If "No", to a. AND b., please explain why the contractor does not have an SBL or an exemption. NRS 687A.040 CREATED THE NEVADA iNSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION AND STATES THAT IT IS A NONPROFIT, UNINCORPORATED LEGAL ENTITY. 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? No b. If "NO", please explain. NRS 687A.040 CREATED THE NEVADA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION AND STATES THAT IT IS A NONPROFIT, UNINCORPORATED LEGAL ENTITY. 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval
Contract #: 13744
User ddennis ddennis dburn4 ddennis sbarkdul nhovden
Signature Date 08/07/2012 13:47:40 PM 08/07/2012 13:47:44 PM 08/08/2012 08:48:57 AM 08/08/2012 08:57:52 AM 08/16/2012 07:10:13 AM 08/21/2012 17:09:01 PM
Page 2 of 3 71
BOE Final Approval
Pending
Contract #: 13744
Page 3 of 3
71
71
71
71
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13749 Legal Entity DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Name: Contractor Name: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Address: City/State/Zip OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY 107 JACOBSEN WAY CARSON CITY, NV 89711
Agency Name:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Agency Code: 800 Appropriation Unit: 4660-06 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: null775/684-7476 Vendor No.: D65800000 NV Business ID: N/A To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2014 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 95.00 % Bonds 0.00 % X Highway Funds 5.00 % Other funding 0.00 % 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of Yes or b. other effective date: Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date 09/2012 Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No NA
12/31/2013 1 year and 121 days Interlocal Agreement Highway Safety Plan
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new interlocal agreement to provide ongoing support data and other information which will continue the statewide paid media enhancement for distracted driving, impaired driving, and pedestrian safety; and expand the high visibility enforcement of Strategic Highway Safety Plan critical emphasis areas. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $800,000.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? 23 USC Part 104(b)(5) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to apportion funds for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Pursuant to 23 USC Part 148(e), the state may implement a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) as part of its HSIP targeted at the State's most serious road transportation safety problems; and allows states to flex ten percent (10%) of those funds for non-infrastructure activities. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: The purposes of 23 USC Part (c)(2) are 1) to develope a statewide coordinated safety plan that provides a comprehensive framework for reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads; 2) to develope the safety plan in coordination with local, state, federal, and private sector safety stakeholders; 3) to ensure the plan is a data driven, four to five year comprehensive plan that establishes statewide goals, objectives and key emphasis areas, and integrates the four "E's" - engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services; and 4) to allow all highway safety programs in the State to work together in an effort to align and leverage its resources. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited?
Contract #: 13749
No
Page 1 of 2 72

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? No If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Not Applicable 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office because the legal entity is a: Governmental Entity 15. Not Applicable 16. Not Applicable 17. Not Applicable 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User mstewa10 mstewa10 mstewa10 mstewa10 cwatson cwatson Pending
Signature Date 08/08/2012 08:55:22 AM 08/08/2012 08:55:26 AM 08/08/2012 08:55:29 AM 08/08/2012 08:55:32 AM 08/17/2012 09:02:48 AM 08/17/2012 09:02:53 AM
Contract #: 13749
Page 2 of 2
72
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13738 Legal Entity CLEAR CHANNEL BROADCASTING Name: Contractor Name: CLEAR CHANNEL BROADCASTING Address: FILE 91100 City/State/Zip LOS ANGELES, CA 90074-1100
Agency Name: DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLES Agency Code: 810 Appropriation Unit: 4722-18 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: null702/238-7406 Vendor No.: PUR0001286A NV Business ID: NV19941059950 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % X Fees 68.00 % Emissions Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 32.00 % Fee Funded 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of Yes or b. other effective date: Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date 09/2012 Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No NA
06/30/2013 302 days Contract Media Contract
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract for the purpose of delivering information to our DMV customers on two important subjects: 1) Assist the public in the titling and registering of Off-Highway Vehicles; and 2) How to report smoking vehicles that are polluting the environment. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $19,042.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? In the 2011 Legislative Session both the Pollution Control Budget and the Off-Highway Vehicle Program was provided funding for the purpose of educating the public on the DMV related information. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: There are no State employees to provide this service. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other?
This contract is one of a number of contractors chosen that offered an advertising schedule with cost-effective audience reach and message frequency. This contractor is one piece in an annual public education campaign supported by other contractors. The Department is contracting with every response. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: DPS-service was satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Nevada Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User cmunoz cmunoz dcook hazevedo cwatson cwatson Pending
Signature Date 08/07/2012 07:17:21 AM 08/07/2012 07:17:24 AM 08/07/2012 10:36:13 AM 08/07/2012 16:26:28 PM 08/17/2012 09:10:09 AM 08/17/2012 09:10:14 AM
Contract #: 13738
Page 2 of 2
73
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13730 Legal Entity CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR Name: Contractor Name: CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR Address: 4945 JOULE ST City/State/Zip RENO, NV 89502-4120
Contact/Phone: null775/856-0220 Vendor No.: PUR0004687B NV Business ID: NV19981236769 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % X Fees 59.00 % Emissions Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 41.00 % Fee Funded 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of Yes or b. other effective date: Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date 09/2012 Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No NA
06/30/2013 302 days Contract Media Contract
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract for the purpose of delivering information to our DMV customers on two important subjects: 1) Assist the public in the titling and registering of Off-Highway Vehicles; and 2) How to report smoking vehicles that are polluting the environment. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $22,992.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? In the 2011 Legislative Session both the Pollution Control Budget and the Off-Highway Vehicle Program was provided funding for the purpose of educating the public on the DMV related information. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: There are no State employees available to provide this service. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other?
This contract is one of a number of contractors chosen that offered an advertising schedule with cost-effective audience reach and message frequency. This contractor is one piece in an annual public education campaign supported by other contractors. The Department is contracting with every response. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

User cmunoz cmunoz dcook hazevedo cwatson cwatson Pending
Signature Date 08/07/2012 07:14:38 AM 08/07/2012 07:14:40 AM 08/07/2012 10:35:51 AM 08/07/2012 16:27:08 PM 08/17/2012 09:09:03 AM 08/17/2012 09:09:11 AM
Contract #: 13730
Page 2 of 2
74
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: CONV5970 Amendment Number: Legal Entity Name: Contractor Name: Address: City/State/Zip 2 Intellectual Technology Inc. Intellectual Technology Inc. 1926 Kellog Ave, Ste A Carlsbad, CA 92008
Contact/Phone: Craig Litchin 7604769100 Vendor No.: T27006453 NV Business ID: NV20101412115 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2009-2018 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % X Highway Funds 100.00 % Other funding 0.00 % Agency Reference #: ZA0413 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Previously Approved Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 08/2012 09/08/2008
09/30/2014 9 years and 24 days Contract Speciality Services
5. Purpose of contract: This is the second amendment to the original contract, which provides for the production, printing and issuance of registration decals, vehicle registration renewal certificates, Motor Carrier International Registration Plan (IRP) and vehicle identification cab cards. This amendment extends the termination date from September 30, 2014 to September 30, 2017 and increases the maximum amount from $2,741,744 to 4,591,299 to allow for the installation and implementation of a Print on Demand System that will enable the DMV offices statewide to print decals and forms at the time of sale. 6. CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1. The maximum amount of the original contract: 2. Total amount of any previous contract amendments: 3. Amount of current contract amendment: 4. New maximum contract amount: and/or the termination date of the original contract has changed to: $2,741,744.00 $0.00 $1,849,555.00 $4,591,299.00 09/30/2017
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? The Department is required by statute to furnish vehicle registration decals and certificates for all vehicles registered in the State. The decal identifies the month and year of the vehicle registration expiration. Due to an audit by the Legislative Counsel Bureau in 2011 it was identified that siginificant improvements in the Department's control over registration decals and one of the recommendations was to look into the benefits of utilizing Print on Demand.
Contract #: CONV5970 Page 1 of 2 75
8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: There are no State employees to provide this service. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: This is an amendment-service has been satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Foreign Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval
User cmunoz cmunoz akeillor hazevedo cwatson cwatson
Signature Date 07/09/2012 16:30:52 PM 07/09/2012 16:30:54 PM 07/09/2012 16:36:45 PM 07/11/2012 11:59:26 AM 08/17/2012 09:01:28 AM 08/17/2012 09:01:33 AM
Page 2 of 2
75
75
75
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 12049 Amendment Number: Legal Entity Name: Contractor Name: Address: City/State/Zip 2 BULLS EYE TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLS EYE TECHNICAL SERVICE 3871 S VALLEY VIEW BLVD STE 64 LAS VEGAS, NV 89103-2914
Agency Name: REHABILITATION DIVISION Agency Code: 901 Appropriation Unit: 3253-10 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: Brian Bresee 702/658-4454 Vendor No.: T29024622 NV Business ID: NV20031239700 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2011-2013 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 100.00 % Business Enterprises Set-Aside Agency Reference #: 1638-12-BEN 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Previously Approved Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 06/14/2011
06/30/2013 2 years and 17 days Contract Appliance Service
5. Purpose of contract: This is the second amendment to the original contract, which provides ongoing repair and maintenance of commercial kitchen appliances such as hot dog rollers, deep fryers, blenders, coffee makers, dishwashers, commercial toasters, can openers, ovens, fryers, steam wells, and convection ovens at any southern Nevada Business Enterprises of Nevada location. This amendment increases the maximum amount from $27,500 to $42,500 due to an increased need for these services. 6. CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1. The maximum amount of the original contract: 2. Total amount of any previous contract amendments: 3. Amount of current contract amendment: 4. New maximum contract amount: $20,000.00 $7,500.00 $15,000.00 $42,500.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? The Business Enterprises of Nevada program sites have on-going needs for kitchen equipment maintenance and repair in order to maintain the sites without interruption of services to the public and building staff. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: State employees do not possess the time, expertise, or licensing required to service kitchen equipment.
9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Six vendors were solicited and this contractor is one of four respondents. All four will be added to form a pool of vendors. d. Last bid date: 01/21/2011 Anticipated re-bid date: 01/21/2015 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Bullys Eye Technical Services is currently performing satisfactory service for the department's Bureau of Services to the Blind and Visually Impaired/Business Enterprises of Nevada and has been since December 2010. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Nevada Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval
User tmyler mcol1 tnash bfor1 knielsen cwatson
Contract #: 12049
Page 2 of 2
76
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13734 Legal Entity CAPGEMINI GOVERNMENT Name: SOLUTIONS Contractor Name: CAPGEMINI GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS Address: LLC 2250 CORPORATE PARK DR STE 410 City/State/Zip HERNDON, VA 20171-2889
Agency Name:
REHABILITATION DIVISION
Contact/Phone: Joe Moye 571/336-1610 Vendor No.: T32001021 NV Business ID: NV2010123337 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. X General Funds 21.30 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 78.70 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % Agency Reference #: 1758-13-REHAB 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of Yes or b. other effective date: Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date 09/2012 Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No NA
03/31/2013 211 days Contract RAISON system connec
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide for the development and installation of computer hardware and software needed to achieve a totally paperless case management system for the Rehabilitation Division's case files; determine and complete system connectivity between the document imaging application and the current Rehabilitation Administration Information System of Nevada; and identify and implement the document workflow stream of processing Rehabilitation vendor invoices. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $1,331,549.40 Other basis for payment: The cost includes $1,025,000 in CapGemini delivery services and a not to exceed amount of $306,549.40 in associated hardware and software. The State will make payments after completed deliverables are received, reviewed, and accepted in writing by the State. Each billing must consist of an invoice and the State approved project deliverable sign-off form. Payments will be made upon submittal of approved invoice(s) for each completed and State accepted deliverable, with the total Contract not to exceed $ 1,331,549.40.
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? The department is in the process of replacing the current Unemployment Insurance (UI) legacy program. It is necessary for the Rehabilitation Division to use the same technology in order to be compatible with the new UI-NV program. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: State employees do not have the expertise, experience, or resources needed in order to complete this project.
9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Sole Source Contract (As Approved by Chief of Purchasing) Approval #: 12076 Approval Date: 07/19/2012 c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: Yes

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: CapGemini is currently under contract with the department for the UI-NV legacy upgrade and has performed satisfactorily. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office because the legal entity is a: Other Foreign Corporation-Limited Liability 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval DoIT Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User tmyler mcol1 tnash bfor1 lmuelle1 knielsen cwatson Pending
Signature Date 08/06/2012 10:35:53 AM 08/06/2012 12:59:01 PM 08/06/2012 13:04:32 PM 08/10/2012 13:00:29 PM 08/13/2012 10:02:31 AM 08/15/2012 15:20:46 PM 08/17/2012 13:56:34 PM
Contract #: 13734
Page 2 of 2
77
77
77
77
77
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13597 Legal Entity SAN DIEGO STATE UNIV FOUNDTN Name: Contractor Name: SAN DIEGO STATE UNIV FOUNDTN Address: SAN DIEGO ST UNV RESEARCH FND 5250 CAMPANILE DR City/State/Zip SAN DIEGO, CA 92182-1901 Contact/Phone: null619/594-5731
Agency Name: REHABILITATION DIVISION Agency Code: 901 Appropriation Unit: 3265-17 Is budget authority No available?: If "No" please explain: The contract is contingent on IFC approval, anticipated to be August 23, 2012, under Work Program #C24044.
Vendor No.: T81037053B NV Business ID: GOVERNMENT ENTITY To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2014 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. X General Funds 21.30 % Fees 0.00 % X Federal Funds 78.70 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % Agency Reference #: 1746-13-REHAB 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 10/01/2012
09/30/2013 364 days Interlocal Agreement Needs Assessment
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new interlocal agreement to perform a comprehensive statewide needs assessment to determine the needs of individuals with disabilities who seek employment and identify the barriers that keep them from successfully achieving employment. The needs assessment team will conduct focus groups, interviews and meetings with consumers, community partners, Workforce Investment Act partners, community rehabilitation training centers and others to determine needs of consumers and strengths and opportunities for improvement within the Rehabilitation Division, Program Services Bureaus. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $35,225.00 Other basis for payment: Payment to be made upon approval of invoice(s) submitted by June 30, 2013, for the following: Total Direct Costs; Personnel and Fringe @$25,426, Travel @$4,890 and Operating Expense @ $2,300; Total Indirect Cost @ $2,609. Total contract not to exceed $35,225 for the term of the contract.
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? Per 34 CFR 361.299, the State plan is required to include results of a comprehensive Statewide Needs Assessment every 3 years describing the rehabilitation needs of individuals with disabilities, seeking to join the workforce, or retain existing employment residing within the State of Nevada. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: This is an interlocal contract with San Diego State University Interwork Institute.
9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Exempt (Per statute) c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? San Diego State University (SDSU), Interwork Institute is Nevada's prescribed Technical Assistance and Continuing Education (TACE) entity, as required by the federal grant making agency, (US Dept. of Ed, RSA). As such, SDSU is uniquely qualified to perform this work, having supplied this service in 2007 and can build upon the previous model developed for Nevada, thereby saving monies and improved service delivery. Interlocal Coorperation Act (NRS Per 277.080277.180). d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: This contractor was under contract with the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Division, in 2010, and performance has been satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is not registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office because the legal entity is a: Governmental Entity 15. Not Applicable 16. Not Applicable 17. Not Applicable 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User tmyler mmason tnash bfor1 knielsen sbrown Pending
Contract #: 13597
Page 2 of 2
78
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13784 Legal Entity Segal Rogerscasey Name: Contractor Name: Segal Rogerscasey Address: 333 West 34th St City/State/Zip New York, NY 10001-2402
Agency Name: DEFERRED COMPENSATION Agency Code: 920 Appropriation Unit: 1017-04 Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: null775-222-2222 Vendor No.: NV Business ID: NV20041686041 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 100.00 % Vendor Reimbursements 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 09/11/2012
12/31/2012 111 days Contract Investment Advisory
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide investment performance review reports, news on investment activities between quarters including capital market research, educate board members on the economic and capital market environment, conduct investment option searches and to negotiate a contract with the selected record keeper. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $24,999.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? The committee oversees over $550 million of participant defined contribution retirement funds and the adviser is a contractual co-fiduciary who provides investment and regulatory expertise to assist the committee in fulfilling its fiduciary duties. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Lack of required level of knowledge and expertise. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other?
Overall price and most recent experience providing these services to the Program. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Yes, this vendor provided satisfactory services to the Nevada Deferred Compensation Program approximately 4.25 years ago. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Foreign Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User wsalisp1 wsalisp1 wsalisp1 csweeney csawaya nhovden Pending
Contract #: 13784
Page 2 of 2
79
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13777 Legal Entity Hillerby & Associates Name: Contractor Name: Hillerby & Associates Address: City/State/Zip 4747 Caughlin Parkway, #9 Reno, NV 89519-0906
Agency Name:
LICENSING BOARDS & COMMISSIONS Agency Code: BDC Appropriation Unit: B007 - All Categories Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: Fred Hillerby 775-332-7660 Vendor No.: NV Business ID: NV19981221232 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2017 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % X Fees 100.00 % Licensing Fees Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % Agency Reference #: BDC 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date or b. other effective date 09/2012 09/01/2012
Retroactive? Yes If "Yes", please explain Contract start date is on September 1, 2012, Board of Examiners meeting date is September 11, 2012. 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: 07/30/2016 3 years and 333 days Contract Legislative Assist
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide legislative review and monitoring to the Board and assist with legislative testimony and communications. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $75,000.00 Payment for services will be made at the rate of $1,500.00 per Month Other basis for payment: Not applicable
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? The Board requires legal assistance with the Legislative Session. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: NSBDE staff is located in Las Vegas and not able to provide daily monitoring of legislative activities in Carson City. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing Yes Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three):
Contract #: 13777
Page 1 of 2
80
b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Hillerby & Associates have been providing legislative monitoring and assistance for many years and have developed a clear understanding of NSBDE. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Not Applicable 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Nevada Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User eobrien eobrien eobrien eobrien eobrien nhovden Pending
Contract #: 13777
Page 2 of 2
80
80
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13778 Legal Entity Hummel & Associates Name: Contractor Name: Hummel & Associates Address: City/State/Zip 8240 W. Charleston Blvd #3 Las Vegas, NV 89117
Agency Name:
Contact/Phone: Stacie Hummel 702-947-0021 Vendor No.: NV Business ID: NV20001389537 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2016 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % X Fees 100.00 % Licensing Fees Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % Agency Reference #: Licensing Boards & Commissions 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date or b. other effective date 09/2012 09/01/2012
Retroactive? Yes If "Yes", please explain Contract start date is on September 1, 2012, Board of Examiners meeting date is September 11, 2012. 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: 06/30/2016 3 years and 303 days Interlocal Agreement Accounting Services
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract to provide the Nevada State Board of Dental Examiners general accounting services. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $72,000.00 Payment for services will be made at the rate of $75.00 per Hour
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? This is a new contract to provide general accounting services to the Nevada State Board of Dental Examiners. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Per NRS 631.190, the Nevada State Board of Dental Examiners may contract for general accounting services. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? No Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other?
This contractor has provided the Nevada State Board of Dental Examiners general accounting services since 2004 and they are very familiar with the Boards needs. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

User eobrien eobrien eobrien eobrien eobrien nhovden Pending
Contract #: 13778
Page 2 of 2
81
81
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13779 Amendment 1 Number: Legal Entity John A. Hunt, Esq. Name: Contractor Name: John A. Hunt, Esq. Address: City/State/Zip 500 S. Rancho Dr. #17 Las Vegas, NV 89106
Agency Name:
Contact/Phone: John A. Hunt 702-436-3835 Vendor No.: NV Business ID: NV20091576696 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2010-2014 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % X Fees 100.00 % Licensing Fees Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % Other funding 0.00 % Agency Reference #: Nevada State Board of Dental Examiners 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Previously Approved Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 08/01/2009
07/31/2013 4 years Contract Legal Services
5. Purpose of contract: This is the first amendment to the original contract which provides general counsel and represents the Board in disciplinary matters. This amendment increases the maximum amount of the contract from $500,000 with a per year limiit of $150,000 to $700,000 with no annual limit. 6. CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1. The maximum amount of the original contract: 2. Total amount of any previous contract amendments: 3. Amount of current contract amendment: 4. New maximum contract amount: $500,000.00 $0.00 $200,000.00 $700,000.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? The Board requires general counsel in disciplinary matters. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: Per NRS 631.190, the NSBDE may contract for general legal services, as necessary. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited?
Contract #: 13779
No
Page 1 of 2 82
Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing No Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): Not Applicable b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? This contractor has been providing legal representation to the Board for more than 20 years. d. Last bid date: Anticipated re-bid date: 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? No If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Not Applicable 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Nevada Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval
User eobrien eobrien eobrien eobrien eobrien nhovden
Contract #: 13779
Page 2 of 2
82
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 10976 Amendment Number: Legal Entity Name: Contractor Name: Address: City/State/Zip 1 I3TECH DATA SOLUTIONS, INC. I3TECH DATA SOLUTIONS, INC. 9310 TECHCENTER DR STE 240 SACRAMENTO, CA 95826
Agency Name: MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENTS Agency Code: MSA Appropriation Unit: 9999 - All Categories Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: Jason Schwartz 916/363-1886 Vendor No.: T27013548 NV Business ID: NV20101275411 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2010-2014 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 100.00 % Various Agency Reference #: RFP #1836 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Previously Approved Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 06/08/2010
06/30/2014 4 years and 23 days MSA Professional Service
5. Purpose of contract: This is the first amendment to the original contract, which provides assistance on a variety of information technology (IT) consulting and technical specialist levels on an hourly basis to state agencies. This amendment increases the maximum amount from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 due to increased usage for IT services. 6. CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1. The maximum amount of the original contract: 2. Total amount of any previous contract amendments: 3. Amount of current contract amendment: 4. New maximum contract amount: $5,000,000.00 $0.00 $5,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? IT consultant services will be utilized when existing State personnel cannot meet required customer needs and/or timeframes. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: The Enterprise Information Technology Services Division is the only State agency authorized to provide information technology services to State agencies that require this service. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited?
Contract #: 10976
Yes
Page 1 of 2 MSA 1
Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing Yes Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Twelve (12) contractors were selected based on an average of technical and cost evaluation criteria. A consensus evaluation by a review committee of four (4) was utilized. d. Last bid date: 12/06/2005 Anticipated re-bid date: 12/15/2013 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: (1) FY11-FY14 Purchasing Division Master Services Agreement (MSA) Contract; (2) FY07-FY10, Department of Information Technology (DoIT) 05-06 Master Services Agreement (MSA) contract; and (3) FY03-FY06, DoIT MSA Contracts. Services have been satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Nevada Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval
User ldeloach ldeloach ktarter ldeloach csawaya cwatson
Contract #: 10976
Page 2 of 2
MSA 1
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 10978 Amendment Number: Legal Entity Name: Contractor Name: Address: City/State/Zip 1 MILLENNIUM INTEGRATED SRVCS 2000, Inc. MILLENNIUM INTEGRATED SRVCS 2000, Inc. MIS2000 INC 704 West Nye Lane Suite 201 Carson City, NV 89703
Agency Name:
MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENTS
Agency Code: MSA Appropriation Unit: 9999 - All Categories Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: Mary Bahn 866/613-6900 Vendor No.: T29015887A NV Business ID: NV20071342864 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2010-2014 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 100.00 % Various Agency Reference #: RFP #1836 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of No Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Previously Approved Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No or b. other effective date 09/2012 06/08/2010
06/30/2014 4 years and 23 days MSA Professional Service
5. Purpose of contract: This is the first amendment to the original contract, which provides assistance on a variety of information technology (IT) consulting and technical specialist levels on an hourly basis to state agencies. This amendment increases the maximum amount from $5,000,000 to $7,500,000 due to increased usage for IT services. 6. CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1. The maximum amount of the original contract: 2. Total amount of any previous contract amendments: 3. Amount of current contract amendment: 4. New maximum contract amount: $5,000,000.00 $0.00 $2,500,000.00 $7,500,000.00
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? IT consultant services will be utilized when existing State personnel cannot meet required customer needs and/or timeframes. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: The Enterprise Information Technology Services Division is the only State agency authorized to provide information technology services to State agencies that require this service.
Contract #: 10978 Page 1 of 2 MSA 2
9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing Yes Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other? Twelve (12) contractors were selected based on an average of technical and cost evaluation criteria. A consensus evaluation by a review committee of four (4) was utilized. The agency verified the vendor has a Nevada business license and is in good standing in all areas of the Secretary of State's business requirements. d. Last bid date: 12/06/2005 Anticipated re-bid date: 12/15/2013 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: (1) FY11-FY14 Purchasing Division Master Services Agreement (MSA) Contract; (2) FY07-FY10, Department of Information Technology (DoIT) 05-06 MSA Contract; and (3) FY03-FY06, DoIT 01-07 MSA Contracts. Services have been satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Nevada Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval
User ldeloach ldeloach ktarter ldeloach csawaya cwatson
Contract #: 10978
Page 2 of 2
MSA 2
BOE Date:
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1. Contract Number: 13725 Legal Entity Sprint Solutions, Inc. Name: Contractor Name: Sprint Solutions, Inc. Address: 12502 Sunrise Valley Drive City/State/Zip Reston, VA 20196
Agency Name: MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENTS Agency Code: MSA Appropriation Unit: 9999 - All Categories Is budget authority Yes available?: If "No" please explain: Not Applicable
Contact/Phone: Michaela Clairmonte 703-433-8581 Vendor No.: NV Business ID: NV19971058950 To what State Fiscal Year(s) will the contract be charged? 2013-2017 What is the source of funds that will be used to pay the contractor? Indicate the percentage of each funding source if the contractor will be paid by multiple funding sources. General Funds 0.00 % Fees 0.00 % Federal Funds 0.00 % Bonds 0.00 % Highway Funds 0.00 % X Other funding 100.00 % Various Agency Reference #: 1907 2. Contract start date: a. Effective upon Board of Yes or b. other effective date: Examiner's approval? Anticipated BOE meeting date 09/2012 Retroactive? If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 3. Termination Date: Contract term: 4. Type of contract: Contract description: No NA
10/31/2016 4 years and 61 days MSA Wireless Services
5. Purpose of contract: This is a new contract which provides wireless devices, maintenance and service, and wireless voice communication and data transmission options such as video, messaging, internet or other services. 6. NEW CONTRACT The maximum amount of the contract for the term of the contract is: $1,500,000.00 Other basis for payment: As invoiced by vendor and approved by the State.
II. JUSTIFICATION
7. What conditions require that this work be done? This contract allows agencies to easily obtain their wireless communication needs. 8. Explain why State employees in your agency or other State agencies are not able to do this work: State agencies or employees do not have the ability or resources to provide wireless services or equipment. 9. Were quotes or proposals solicited? Yes Was the solicitation (RFP) done by the Purchasing Yes Division? a. List the names of vendors that were solicited to submit proposals (include at least three): b. Soliciation Waiver: Not Applicable c. Why was this contractor chosen in preference to other?
Contract #: 13725 Page 1 of 2 MSA 3
Upon thorough review and evaluation of technical and cost proposals, this vendor was one of six selected and highest scored by the evaluation committee. d. Last bid date: 02/03/2011 Anticipated re-bid date: 02/03/2015 10. Does the contract contain any IT components? No

11. a. Is the contractor a current employee of the State of Nevada or will the contracted services be performed by a current employee of the State of Nevada? No b. Was the contractor formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months or will the contracted services be performed by someone formerly employed by the State of Nevada within the last 24 months? No c. Is the contractor employed by any of Nevada's political subdivisions or by any other government? No If "Yes", please explain Not Applicable 12. Has the contractor ever been engaged under contract by any State agency? Yes If "Yes", specify when and for which agency and indicate if the quality of service provided to the identified agency has been verified as satisfactory: Contractor currently provides wireless communication services and equipment statewide. Quality is satisfactory. 13. Is the contractor currently involved in litigation with the State of Nevada? No If "Yes", please provide details of the litigation and facts supporting approval of the contract: Not Applicable 14. The contractor is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office as a: Foreign Corporation 15. a. Is the Contractor Name the same as the legal Entity Name? Yes 16. a. Does the contractor have a current Nevada State Business License (SBL)? Yes 17. a. Is the legal entity active and in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office? Yes 18. Agency Field Contract Monitor: 19. Contract Status: Contract Approvals: Approval Level Budget Account Approval Division Approval Department Approval Contract Manager Approval Budget Analyst Approval BOE Agenda Approval BOE Final Approval
User sberry sberry ktarter tsmit2 csawaya cwatson Pending
Contract #: 13725
Page 2 of 2
MSA 3

Boe Agenda 2012 09 11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Boe Agenda 2012 09 11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POST *** NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING *** BOARD OF EXAMINERS

Board of Examiners Meeting September 11, 2012 Agenda Page 1

FOR POSSIBLE ACTION APPROVAL TO PAY A CASH SETTLEMENT

FOR POSSIBLE ACTION REVIEW OF A CONTRACT WITH A FORMER EMPLOYEE

Board of Examiners Meeting September 11, 2012 Agenda Page 2

FOR POSSIBLE ACTION STATE VEHICLE PURCHASE

FOR POSSIBLE ACTION TORT CLAIM

FOR POSSIBLE ACTION VICTIMS OF CRIME FY 2012 REPORT

FOR POSSIBLE ACTION LEASES

LESSOR Sierra Medical Complex Limited Partnership

Board of Psychological Examiners 2.

Kietzke Office Complex, LLC.

Board of Examiners Meeting September 11, 2012 Agenda Page 3

LESSOR Nye County

Bay-O-Vista Realty Company, DBA Federighi & Company

Department of Public Safety 5.

James Terry Gust

*10. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION CONTRACTS

EXCEPTIONS FOR SOLICITATIONS AND/OR EMPLOYEES

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

OTHER: BUILDING RENT INCOME FEES

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

MCNEILS CLEANING SERVICE, INC.

FEE: BUILDING RENT INCOME FEES

Board of Examiners Meeting September 11, 2012 Agenda Page 4

EXCEPTIONS FOR SOLICITATIONS AND/OR EMPLOYEES

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

RENO TAHOE FRANCHISING, INC.

FEE: BUILDINGS & GROUNDS, BUILDING RENT INCOME FEE

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

U.S. LEASECOMM, LLC.

OTHER: BUILDING RENT INCOME FEES

RESEARCH FACILITIES DESIGN

BONDS: PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF BONDS

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION GENERAL 05 CIP ADA NONEXEC

SIXFIFTY CORP, DBA. LICATA

Board of Examiners Meeting September 11, 2012 Agenda Page 5

EXCEPTIONS FOR SOLICITATIONS AND/OR EMPLOYEES

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION PURCHASING COMMODITY FOOD PROGRAM

CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES OF NORTHERN NEVADA

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION PURCHASING COMMODITY FOOD PROGRAM

ELKO FRIENDS IN SERVICE

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION PURCHASING COMMODITY FOOD PROGRAM

FOOD BANK OF NORTHERN NEVADA

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION PURCHASING COMMODITY FOOD PROGRAM

LAS VEGAS RESCUE MISSION

Board of Examiners Meeting September 11, 2012 Agenda Page 6

EXCEPTIONS FOR SOLICITATIONS AND/OR EMPLOYEES

COMMISSION ON TOURISM TOURISM DEVELOPMENT FUND

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

OTHER: LODGING TAX

GOVERNORS OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

GOVERNORS OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION ENTERPRISE IT SERVICES COMPUTER FACILITY

CPS NEVADA, LLC.

FEE: FACILITY FEES

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION ENTERPRISE IT SERVICES COMPUTER FACILITY

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC BUILDINGS

FEE: FACILITY FEES

Board of Examiners Meeting September 11, 2012 Agenda Page 7

EXCEPTIONS FOR SOLICITATIONS AND/OR EMPLOYEES

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION TITLE I

POST * NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING * BOARD OF EXAMINERS