Representative presses Alabama corrections staff over emergency contract switch, seeks vendor vetting documents

Representative John England pressed Department of Corrections officials during the Contract Review Committee’s May session for a detailed accounting of how an emergency contract award was made and who vetted the replacement vendor.

England said a long-running contract with YesCare was replaced recently by a company he identified in the meeting as Navcare and that the swap occurred without a public bid. He told the committee the new arrangement was for “half $1,000,000,000,” a figure the chair confirmed in the session; England said he would hold all Department of Corrections contracts until he receives written answers about how the vendor was chosen and how outstanding assets and employees from the prior contractor will be handled.

“Who vetted that contractor? Navcare didn’t even bid on the contract that YesCare was given a couple of years ago,” England said, accusing the procurement process of insufficient oversight and citing reports of performance issues involving similar vendors in other states. He also asked whether the new contractor assumed any assets or employees from YesCare, which England said faces a nearly $300 million judgment in Michigan.

Mandy Spears, the department representative present, acknowledged the questions and said officials would provide the committee with the requested information as soon as possible. “We can get you those answers ASAP,” she said.

England additionally flagged payments totaling roughly $4.5 million previously made to a company he identified as Leo Technologies and questioned why some of those expenditures did not appear to have gone through contract review. He said he would formally request documentation and indicated he may hold DOC contracts pending the committee’s receipt of records.

Senator Butler urged England to review the state’s Contract Review Act — referred to in the meeting as the Butler Dixon Act — noting the statute can render contracts void if they bypass required committee review.

The Department of Corrections did not present new written documentation during the meeting; staff repeatedly told the committee they would follow up in writing. The committee did not take a formal vote on any corrective action during the session. The matter remains under review by the committee pending the department’s written responses to the questions England raised.