'); } -->
It is the largest service contract in state history.
It has turned into a huge headache as well.
The contract in question is a $171 million, five-year deal with Affiliated Computer Services to install a new Medicaid claims-processing system for the state Department of Health and Human Services.
2004
APRIL: The state awards the $171 million, five-year contract to Affiliated Computer Services. The state's current contractor, Electronic Data Systems, loses.
JULY: ACS complains to the state Department of Health and Human Services in a letter that the state is providing the company with too many comments from reviewers, slowing progress.
2005
JANUARY: An administrative law judge agrees with EDS that the state improperly awarded the contract to ACS and should rebid the contract.
MARCH: A 2004 audit that claims EDS overbilled the state $19 million comes to light.
MARCH: EDS takes its argument on the improper contract award to the state's chief information officer, who later rejects it.
MAY: EDS sues the state.
2006
JANUARY: Superior Court judge says ACS can keep the contract. EDS appeals.
FEBRUARY: ACS asks the state for an additional $42 million. A committee of DHHS staff, including internal auditors, the deputy director of the state's information technology office, a representative from the state budget office and lawyers from the state Attorney General's office determined the company hadn't justified its claim.
MARCH: DHHS project manager produces a chart showing ACS' lack of oversight, staff turnover and inability to fit existing components to the state's requirements had contributed to delays.
JUNE: ACS cuts its request for more money to $18 million. DHHS Secretary Carmen Hooker Odom tells ACS the department plans to cancel the contract.
JULY: After several negotiation periods, Hooker Odom cancels the contract. ACS sues for public records.
AUGUST: The state says it calculates $33 million in 'reduced compensation' because of the company's missed deadlines. ACS says it is owed $27 million.
Affiliated Computer Services won the contract in 2004. A new system to process millions of claims from hospitals, doctors and others to be paid by the state and federal health insurance program for the poor and disabled was supposed to be ready this year.
It now may not be ready until closer to the end of the decade. The state has been sued by ACS and the company that had the previous contract to process Medicaid claims. And in July, DHHS canceled its contract with ACS.
The state has not yet rebid the job.
"It's still in the planning stages of how it's going to be done," said Mark Van Sciver, a spokesman for DHHS.
The state had been weighing the advantages of canceling the ACS contract and starting fresh at least since April, state records show.
On Feb. 1, ACS had asked DHHS for an additional $42 million, saying the state was responsible for delays that increased company expenses.
DHHS secretary Carmen Hooker Odom turned down the company's request in April, saying ACS had not justified it.
After the contract cancellation, the company sued the state agency, and the two sides appear to be on the threshold of another argument about money.
Renee Montgomery, ACS' Raleigh lawyer, said the state owes the company about $27 million for its work, on top of about $5 million already paid.
The department's contract administrator told the company in an Aug. 1 letter that it calculated $33 million in contract reductions because the company missed deadlines. The company's original bid to replace the existing claims system was $19 million.
Legislators are curious about how the contract went wrong, but don't have a say in how it is handled.
"It's obviously not the way that I would prefer that it goes," said state Sen. Vernon Malone, a Raleigh Democrat.
But Malone, who is chairman of committees in the state Senate concerned with computer technology and health and human services spending, said he was "relieved when the secretary terminated the contract" because it gave the department the chance at a fresh start.
"I thought it would wipe the slate clean and, hopefully, flush away the mistakes that may, and I underscore may, have gotten us where we are," he said.
In the meantime, the department is considering extending through 2009 the contract with Electronic Data Systems, the company that has run the claims system for nearly 30 years. ACS objects to the extension.
Lurking in the background is a DHHS draft audit from two years ago that claimed EDS overbilled the state $19 million by charging too much for computer use. Though legislators wanted the state to try to get the money repaid, there has been no movement to collect.
EDS continues to maintain that the audit was wrong.
"That audit is old news," said Bill Ritz, an EDS spokesman. "It was based on a misunderstanding of the contract language."
DHHS has refrained from acting on the audit until the company's lawsuit against the state is settled, Van Sciver said.
Get it all with convenient home delivery of The News & Observer.
The News & Observer is pleased to be able to offer its users the opportunity to make comments and hold conversations online. However, the interactive nature of the internet makes it impracticable for our staff to monitor each and every posting.
Since The News & Observer does not control user submitted statements, we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted on our website. In addition, we remind anyone interested in making an online comment that responsibility for statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not The News and Observer.
If you find a comment offensive, clicking on the exclamation icon will flag the comment for review by the administrators, we are counting on the good judgment of all our readers to help us.