State asks court to say no to tag fees in Metrc suit response

 

Ahead of the December 12 hearing on the Metrc seed-to-sale contract lawsuit, the State has responded to the original September 20 filing of the suit. The State asked for judgment against Metrc and that third parties not be allowed to charge the public or facilities per plant or per package tag charges and for “further relief as this Court deems appropriate.”

WHEREFORE, having fully answered, State Defendants requests that this Commission enter judgment against Metrc, declare that the contract between the State of Missouri and Metrc does not allow for Metrc to charge third parties and/or the public per facility, per plant, or per package, such as for RFID tag charges, and requests such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate. 

The State’s response goes through the Metrc suit before outlining the timeline of the contract proposal discussions between the State and Metrc, where they claim that the seed-to-sale tracking service provider clearly understood what their bid proposed under the State’s request for proposals (RFP). 

   

The suit will be heard on December 12 by Circuit Judge Dan Green. The case was filed in Missouri’s 19th Judicial Circuit, where suits against or from the state originate. BioTrackTHC has been granted their motion to intervene in the suit. They also protested the award of the contract to Metrc earlier this year on similar grounds as their motion to intervene.

Notable parts of the State’s response:

  • The RFP also required that “[t]he contractor . . . meet or exceed all specifications required [therein] to enable the solution to function as specified, and that “[u]nless otherwise specified herein, . . . furnish all material, labor, facilities, equipment, and supplies necessary to perform the services required [therein].” Id. at §§ 2.1.2 and 2.1.6. The RFP required that the vendor provide licenses to the Medical Marijuana Information Solution, on a subscription basis, to 55 internal state agency users and unlimited external users. Id. at Ex. A, pp. 61-64. See also id. at §§ 2.9.1 and 2.9.1(a).
  • 51. The RFP required vendors to provide firm, fixed pricing for the provision of the Medical Marijuana Information Solution, and for the implementation of the Medical Marijuana Information Solution, on the “Pricing Page,” Id. at Ex. A., pp. 61-64. “The vendor shall provide firm, fixed pricing for the original contract period and maximum pricing for each potential renewal period for the Medical Marijuana Information Solution ….” Id. at p. 61. See also RFP, p. 83 (defining “Pricing Page(s)” as “the form(s) on which the vendor must state the price(s) applicable for the equipment, supplies, and/or services required in the RFP”). Id. at p. 85. 
  • Metrc provided a response to the Metrc BAFO Request that included a revised “Pricing Page” for items 11 and 15, which did not include any “industry paid” notations, or otherwise indicate any fees, costs, prices, or other charges to be assessed against licensees or entities other than the State. Metrc’s BAFO response did not include any prices to be paid by the State per facility, per plant, or per package. Metrc’s BAFO response asserted that the proposal was based on 340 businesses. 
  • The Division sought further clarification of whether the pricing stated for the original contract period, years 1 to 5, and the two renewal periods, was “firm, fixed prices,” or whether the pricing is dependent upon the number of businesses that will actually be licensed by the state. 
  • The RFP required that all costs be included in the price charged to the State. The provisions of the contract between the State of Missouri and Metrc do not allow for Metrc to charge third parties and/or the public per facility, per plant, or per package, such as for RFID tag charges. 
  • Metrc responded that “[t]he amount on Line Item 11 is our firm and fixed pricing” based on the State’s projection.

Read the full response, filed electronically by the state on November 30, below. 

×