Attorney General's Opinion
Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal
November 9, 2005
The Honorable Robert L. Genuario
Office of Policy and Management
450 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106-1308
Dear Secretary Genuario:
You have asked for my opinion as to whether there is a legal distinction between a Personal Service Agreement (“PSA”) and a Purchase of Service Contract (“POS”). Specifically, you also ask the following questions:
- What statutory provisions require that a PSA be reviewed by the Attorney General as to form;
- What distinction exists that exempts a POS from said statutory requirements; and
- What distinction exists, if any, that exempts a POS from the statutory requirement contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. §4-212, et seq.
In my opinion, there is no legal distinction between a PSA and a POS, even though the Office of Policy and Management (“OPM”) may choose to establish certain administrative procedures treating these types of agreements differently; they are both valid vehicles for entering into binding State contracts. As discussed more fully below, the answers to your questions are as follows:
- The Attorney General's authority to review PSA and POS contracts is contained within Conn. Gen. Stat. §3-125, which provides that the “Attorney General shall have general supervision over all legal matters in which the state is an interested party.” Contracts are legal "matters" and the state is "an interested party" in all state contracts.
- POS contracts are not exempt from review by this office.
- POS contracts, like Purchase of Service Agreements, are subject to the competitive procurement provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-212 et seq.
Your question asking whether POS contracts, like PSA contracts, are subject to the competitive procurement provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-212 et seq was already answered in an earlier Opinion of the Attorney General, see 2004 Conn. Op. Atty. Gen. 020 (2004) (attached for your convenience). This Office concluded in that Opinion that contracts between a state agency and a private entity for the provision of certain human services for the benefit of both the public (typically through a POS) and state agencies (typically through a PSA) are subject to the competitive procurement requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-212 et seq. unless otherwise exempted by statute. As we stated in that opinion: "Questions have been raised as to whether Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-212 applies to contracts for services to the public, or only to contracts for services provided directly to state agencies. An examination of the relevant statutes and their legislative history indicates that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-212 applies in both instances."
The authority for the Attorney General to review contracts is contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. §3-125, which gives the Attorney General “general supervision over all legal matters in which the state is an interested party. . . .” Contracts are legal documents that set forth the state's rights and obligations, and the state is “an interested party” in every one of its contracts. As such, they are subject to review by this Office as the Attorney General deems it to be appropriate. See id., Op. Atty. Gen. 020 (2004). There is nothing unique about POS contracts that would suggest that they be treated differently from other state contracts or that they should be exempt from review by this Office.
In posing your question of whether there is a legal distinction between a PSA and a POS that exempts a POS from review by this office you reference an August 9, 2001 letter that I wrote to Department of Social Services Commissioner Patricia Wilson-Coker. That letter states that there is no specific statute requiring this Office to review every state contract. While there is no statutory requirement that this office review every state contract, Conn. Gen. Stat. §3-125 gives the Attorney General the specific discretionary authority to determine whether review of all or any particular contract is appropriate and advisable. In regard to the “managed care contracts for the State's Medicaid program,” referenced in the August 9, 2001 letter, the Attorney General determined that this office would not review those particular contracts because they were not "consistent with the positions [this office had] taken in related litigation or in the best interests of Connecticut's citizens." Consequently, the statements made to Commissioner Wilson-Coker specifically related only to the 2001 Medicaid managed care contracts and did not relate to PSA or POS contracts generally.
I trust this letter provides you with the answers to your questions. If you need further information, please contact me.
Very truly yours,