(2000)

85 Op. Att'y Gen. 68
Maryland Attorney General Reports·Decided March 10, 2000·Published

Opinion

Dear Mr. O'Donnell:

You have asked for our opinion on which State agency purchases of residential and similar human, social, cultural, and educational services1 constitute "procurement contracts" that trigger application of the lobbying provisions of the Maryland Public Ethics Law. We understand that, in administering those lobbying provisions, the State Ethics Commission ("the Commission") has encountered instances in which lay "interveners" have been engaged by human services providers to assist in their dealings with State agencies. You ask our opinion concerning two specific types of contracts, administered by the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Developmental Disabilities Administration of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, respectively.

As a general rule, State agency purchases of human services fall within the definition of "procurement contract." However, particular transactions may be exempt from that definition as "Medicaid, Judicare, or similar reimbursement contract[s]" for which the law sets eligibility standards and price. Because it is often not immediately apparent whether that exemption applies to a particular transaction, the nature of each type of purchase must be examined, together with any law and regulations governing the program under which the purchase is made. With respect to the two types of contracts you mention, we conclude that one involves procurement contracts, while the other does not.

I
The Maryland Public Ethics Law, Lobbying, and Procurement Contracts
Under the Maryland Public Ethics Law, any entity that is employed to influence executive action on a procurement contract that exceeds $100,000 must register with the Commission as a "regulated lobbyist," and must comply with other provisions of the ethics law regarding lobbyists. Annotated Code of Maryland, State Government Article ("SG"), § 15-701(a)(3).2 The ethics law defines "procurement contract" by cross-reference to the State procurement law. SG, § 15-102(ee) (incorporating definition of "procurement contract" in State Finance and Procurement Article ("SFP"), § 11-101).

The procurement law defines "procurement contract" broadly, as "an agreement in any form entered into by a unit for procurement." SFP, § 11-101(n)(1).3 However, certain contracts are specifically excluded from the definition. Pertinent to your question, the definition excludes:

a Medicaid, Judicare, or similar reimbursement contract for which law sets:

1. user or recipient eligibility; and

2. price payable by the State.

SFP, § 11-101(n)(2)(iii).4

You indicate that the Commission is currently considering two matters that require application of this definition: (1) one involves a purchase by the Developmental Disabilities Administration of housing for developmentally disabled individuals, and (2) the other relates to a purchase by the Department of Juvenile Justice of residential services for delinquent girls. In addition, we understand that the Commission seeks our opinion on the status under the procurement law of State agency purchases of other human, social, cultural, and educational services.

II
The Procurement Law and Human Services Contracts
The application of State procurement law to the purchase of human services has been a matter of debate since the genesis of the State's comprehensive procurement law.5 That debate has inspired modification of the procurement law to accommodate the particular nature of these services. Nevertheless, most human services contracts continue to be awarded under the procurement law. Even more pertinent to the Commission's concerns, most human services contracts continue to fit the definition of "procurement contract" under both the procurement and public ethics laws.

A. Development of Procurement Law in Relation to Human Services Contracts
1. Adoption of State Procurement Law
When the State procurement law was first enacted in 1980, it included an exemption, much like the one now contained in SFP, § 11-101(n)(2)(iii), for "Medicaid, judicare, or similar reimbursement contracts for which user eligibility and cost are set by law or by rules and regulations." Chapter 775, Laws of Maryland 1980, then codified at Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 21, § 1-101(f)(2)(ii). The rationale for that exemption appears to have been that there was little need for the administrative control procedures newly established by the procurement law where major aspects of the award of a contract were already controlled by other law or regulations.

Because relatively few human services contracts came within the exemption, it appeared that most such contracts would be awarded under the new procurement law. There was apprehension among providers of human services, as well as within State agencies that awarded human services contracts, that administrative controls appropriate for the acquisition of supplies, construction, and other types of services would be an uneasy fit for purchases of human services. For example, there were concerns that, in awarding contracts for human services, agencies would be required to give inappropriate preference to "low bids" and would not be permitted to give adequate consideration to individual client needs, continuity of care, proven provider success with particular client populations, and similar factors.

2. Revision of Procurement Law — Mid-1980's
To assess these concerns about the application of the procurement law to purchases of human services, the Board of Public Works (the "Board") in April 1982 established an ad hoc subcommittee, known as the Platman Committee,6 which was charged with making recommendations to the Board and the General Assembly. Chapter 141, Preamble, Laws of Maryland 1982. In the meantime, the General Assembly passed emergency legislation requiring each procurement department7 to adopt regulations setting conditions and procedures under which human services could be purchased through methods other than those established for procurements generally, and exempting those purchases from the procurement law during the interim. Chapter 141, Laws of Maryland 1982.8

In its final report, the Platman Committee recommended that, rather than exempt human services generally from the procurement law, the State should tailor the procurement law and regulations to address the concerns that had been expressed about their application to human services contracts. Report of the Ad HocAdvisory Subcommittee on the Purchase of Human, Social, Cultural,and Educational Services to the Maryland General Assembly (September 1983); see also Chapter 292, Preamble, Laws of Maryland 1984. In this regard, the Committee expressed its belief that the procurement process could be structured to deal with transitional care and associated funding problems, and to assure the satisfaction of "minimum program standards" established by the agencies responsible for purchasing human services.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(2000), 85 Op. Att'y Gen. 68 (Md. 2000).

85 Op. Att'y Gen. 68 ((2000)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Maryland Port Administration v. John W. Brawner Contracting Co.
492 A.2d 281 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1985)
Department of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Chimes, Inc.
681 A.2d 484 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1996)