| 4/6/2021 |
Clark County Board of Commissioners
| Approved as Recommended
Agenda note: SPEAKER(S): Present
DISCUSSION: Following introduction of the item, Clark County Fire Chief Steinbeck addressed the Board and advised that the department wanted to replace the portable heart monitors as the current ones were 11 years old; the devices were used to analyze a patient's medical episode(s) and determine the correct course of treatment; three monitors were reviewed and selected the Zoll Monitor for, but not limited to, the simplicity of use, a comfort level for the firefighters and first responders to have; and the interoperability with other agencies in the valley.
David Shelton of Enerspect Medical advised that the company had provided and supported the incumbent devices for the past seven years which resulted in a savings to the County of over $300,000; voiced a formal complaint in protest against Clark County Fire Department's sole source procurement process of Item No. 16; noting that the action did not meet the requirements of a sole source as there were other companies which could meet the specifications as outlined in Fiscal Directive No. Six, thus nullifying the sole source; and further advised that moving forward with the chosen company, which was not located in Clark County, could result in a loss of employment for countless local employees; and requested that the Board review the evaluation process or move to a Request For Proposal (RFP) process.
Chief Steinbeck responded to Mr. Shelton and advised that in reviewing equipment for purchase, RFPs could not be utilized due to the thorough process used in vetting the devices; and spoke regarding reasons for the choice that was made.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Gibson, Legal Counsel advised that under Nevada law, a government agency could designate a particular item that may end up being sole source if compatible with other equipment in use in the valley; several EMS agencies had already chosen Zoll; and the standardization of medical equipment across emergency medical providers was important and justified the designation of the equipment as sole source; under two different provisions in NRS 332, the selection of the device was appropriate. | Pass |
Action details
|
Meeting details
|
Video/Audio
|