# Competitive-Bid Exemption (Sole-Source Procurement) Arkansas municipal law currently identifies single-source purchasing in Ark. Code Ann. section 14-58-104(21), and cooperative purchasing in subdivision (20). Section 14-58-303 separately addresses municipal bidding and a governing-body waiver by ordinance when bidding is not feasible or practical. The numbers 18, 21, 26, 43, and 44 in the Little Rock production are fields on local forms or attached lists; they are not current statutory subsection citations. (primary public record, [Arkansas Act 435 of 2021](../../web%20archive/2026-08-10/arkleg.state.ar.us/arkansas-act-435-of-2021-municipal-purchasing.md)); (primary public record, [Arkansas Act 208 of 2023](../../web%20archive/2026-08-10/arkleg.state.ar.us/arkansas-act-208-of-2023-municipal-bidding.md)) > "Goods or services available only from a single source. a. A purchase order under this subdivision (44) shall be supported with: i. Documentation concerning the exclusivity of the single source; and ii. A written proclamation from the chief executive filed with the clerk or recorder that sets forth the basis for the single source procurement." (Tier-1 corpus, Arkansas Code § 14-58-104 §4 Line 44, as embedded in [[sources/city-of-little-rock/CLR-2026-778/_overview|CLR-2026-778]] Cellebrite, NetMotion, and PowerDMS exemption forms) The LRPD forms document how Little Rock routed particular purchases. They do not by themselves establish that every required proclamation, ordinance, approval, or filing existed, and this page does not adjudicate compliance. See [[Arkansas Municipal County and State Cooperative Procurement Law]]. ## Distinct exemption tracks within the corpus The corpus contains four LRPD-side exemption forms, two procurement tracks: | Vendor | Form date | Amount | Exemption Line | Signer | Approver | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | **Cellebrite Advanced Services** | 2024-10-14 | $21,136.06 | **#44 (single source)** | [[Latreasa Mullins-Sanders]] | [[Lisa King]] (10/17/24) | | **PowerDMS** | 2024-10-14 | $23,161.97 | **#44 (single source)** | [[Latreasa Mullins-Sanders]] | (Procurement Staff) | | **NetMotion** | 2024-02-12 | $30,064.80 | **#26 (proprietary-software renewal)** | [[Latreasa Mullins-Sanders]] | [[Lisa King]] (2/15/24) | | **i2 (Analyst's Notebook + iBase)** | 2024-01-30 | $11,136.97 | **#18 + #21 (both)** — renewal AND single source | Amanda B. Jones (Grants Manager) | Vitesh Patel (Procurement Manager) | The four-form corpus shows that LRPD's "sole-source" practice is actually three distinct exemption tracks: 1. **Local form fields 21/44 (single-source rationale)** — affirmative single-source filing with the chief-executive proclamation. Cellebrite Advanced Services and PowerDMS use this. 2. **Local form field 18 (renewal)** — renewal or extension of an existing contract. i2 uses Line 18 alongside the single-source rationale (because IBM was the prior vendor, and N. Harris is now the sole supporter of an existing product line). 3. **Local form field 26 (proprietary-software renewal)** — explicitly available for proprietary-software renewals, additional copies, technical support, and license upgrades. NetMotion uses this — the most permissive sole-source-pattern path because it does not require a chief-executive proclamation. ## How it appears in the corpus — the affirmative-filing pattern For Cellebrite, PowerDMS, and NetMotion, the corpus contains the actual signed exemption form (with the corresponding section of the Arkansas Appendix I attached on a second page). The exemption form is straightforward — a one-page request stating department, amount, exemption line, signer, date, and approver. The Arkansas Appendix I (lines 1-44 of the exemption commodities-and-services list) is then attached as a second page of the form. The corpus also contains the **substantive justification text** for the NetMotion #26 exemption — a multi-paragraph technical explanation of why NetMotion's product is uniquely suited to LRPD's CJIS-compliance requirements. See [[NetMotion]] for the full quote. ## How it appears in the corpus — the i2 affirmative-filing pattern The i2 exemption form (signed by **Amanda B. Jones, Grants Manager**, not Mullins-Sanders) embeds the substantive justification on the same page as the exemption-request fields: > "Bid occurred previously for this software (iBase, Analyst Notebook) that is used by Special Investigations, Real time Crime Center, and Gun Crimes Intelligence Unit. IBM was the initial contracted vendor (Contract 426) however IBM no longer supports this software and N. Harris Computer Corporation is the sole supporter." (Tier-1 corpus, Competitive Exemption Form_Approved.pdf, p. 1) This is the corpus's clearest documentary anchor for the **IBM-to-N. Harris i2 product transition** of 2022. ## Comparison with the Conway pattern The Conway comparison is documentary, not a legal verdict. Conway changed "sole source" to "the only provider" in its ordinance; Little Rock completed local forms identifying single-source or renewal fields. Current statutes do not make those local field numbers controlling legal citations, and the complete record required to adjudicate either transaction is not assembled here. Little Rock and Conway thus take *mirror-image* approaches to the same competition-avoiding end: - **Conway:** strip the word "sole source" from the ordinance so the Arkansas filing regime does not attach. - **Little Rock:** affirmatively file the Line 44 form with chief-executive proclamation, documenting the sole-source basis. Both procurement paths reduce open competition; they document differently. The corpus's analytic observation is that Conway's path is procedurally evasive of the Arkansas regime while Little Rock's is procedurally compliant — but both narrow the procurement universe to a vendor-chosen single source. ## Stakeholders - **City of Little Rock procurement staff:** [[Lisa King]] (Senior Procurement Analyst, approver for most LRPD sole-source filings), Vitesh Patel (Procurement Manager, approver for the i2 / Finance-Grants filing). - **LRPD finance:** [[Latreasa Mullins-Sanders]] (signer for Cellebrite, PowerDMS, NetMotion). - **Finance/Grants:** Amanda B. Jones (signer for i2). - **Vendors with sole-source-rationale relationships at LRPD:** Cellebrite (Advanced Services lab work), NEOGOV/PowerDMS (policy/training management), NetMotion (cellular VPN), N. Harris Computer Corporation/i2. ## Timeline - **2024-01-30:** i2 exemption filed (Lines 18 + 21). - **2024-02-12:** NetMotion exemption filed (Line 26). - **2024-10-14:** Cellebrite Advanced Services exemption filed (Line 44). - **2024-10-14:** PowerDMS exemption filed (Line 44). - **2024-10-17:** Lisa King approves the Cellebrite Advanced Services exemption. - **2024-02-15:** Lisa King approves the NetMotion exemption. ## Notes - The two-page lists attached to the LRPD forms are Tier-1 facts about those filings. Their line numbers should not be represented as current Arkansas Code subdivisions. - See [[Cooperative Purchasing Vehicle]] for the parallel exemption track (Line 43) that LRPD uses for Flock, Watchguard M500, Utility, and other surveillance buys. - The Conway↔Little Rock procurement-mechanism comparison is also discussed on [[Sole-Source Procurement Language Avoidance]] and is a candidate for synthesis-essay treatment. ## Pulaski County (PCSO) — the counter-pattern (no exemption used) The [[pulaski-county-government/26-365/_overview|Pulaski County `#26-365`]] production documents a procurement that **did NOT use any competitive-bid exemption**. PCSO's Flock procurement went through [[Competitive RFP Procurement (Arkansas Counties)|actual competitive RFP procurement]] (RFP-23-003) — a public solicitation through [[ARBid]], 4-bidder competition, scored evaluation, award to highest-scoring vendor. No Line-21, Line-26, Line-43, or Line-44 exemption was invoked. This is the corpus's first documented four-bidder Arkansas LE-agency ALPR RFP. That process feature does not establish superlative legal compliance, and the $36,900 contract exceeded the then-$35,000 county threshold. Section 14-22-112 and the complete authorization record remain relevant. | Jurisdiction | Procurement track | Statutory basis | |---|---|---| | Conway PD | One-vendor purchase; terminology changed | Municipal ordinance; legal effect of wording unresolved | | LRPD (most surveillance vendors) | Cooperative purchasing | Local form field; current municipal authority includes § 14-58-104(20) | | LRPD (Cellebrite, PowerDMS, etc.) | Single-source or renewal form | Local fields; current single-source authority includes § 14-58-104(21) | | **PCSO (Flock)** | **Competitive RFP** | **No exemption — competitive bidding completed** | The Pulaski County production permits a strong process comparison—open solicitation, four bids, scoring, award, and an executed agreement—but does not establish that no legislative authorization was required or that the transaction was categorically the corpus's most legally compliant acquisition. Craighead County's produced purchasing packet separately reproduces a county single-source rule requiring both exclusivity documentation and a county-court order stating the basis ([[Craighead County Purchasing Policy and Ordinance]], pp. 16-17). No system-specific Craighead single-source record was included, so the rule is not treated as evidence that an exemption was used for Avigilon, BRINC, BWC phones, or cross-agency access. ## Current-law authority crosswalk The 2026-08-10 legal audit uses these authorities only for the bounded propositions stated below: - (web research 2026-08-10, [Klinger v. City of Fayetteville, 732 S.W.2d 859 (Ark. 1987)](../../web%20archive/2026-08-10/app.midpage.ai/klinger-v-city-of-fayetteville-732-s-w-2d-859-ark-1987.md)) — Under the then-governing city-manager statute, bidding was mandatory absent a formal ordinance finding bidding infeasible or impractical. Does not decide current section 14-58-104, sole-source terminology, later ratification, or every municipal form of government.