# Sole-Source Procurement Language Avoidance A documented terminology-edit pattern anchored by Conway's January 2, 2025 ordinance-drafting exchange. The procurement involved one named vendor, no competing quotes, and a compatibility justification; the drafter replaced "sole source" with "the only provider who can supply the LPR system." The record proves the edit and the procurement official's stated concern. It does not prove that this wording changed the governing legal route or avoided a required filing. ## How it appears in the corpus The single canonical anchor is Mayor's-Office Procurement Manager Tiffany Maddox's January 2, 2025 11:12 AM reply to CPD's Celeste Phillips on the draft ordinance ([[Pre-Council Procurement Coordination Dec 2024 – Jan 2025|Ordinance for Review thread]]): > *"The only thing that I would say to definitely not put in there are the words 'sole source' because they have become bad words with the State and the Legislature. So much so that now if anyone wants to say that something is a sole source a document has to be filled out and filed. It is crazy."* The substantive procurement parameters are unchanged by the edit: - **One vendor** is named (Flock Safety). - **No competitive process** is performed. - **No other quotes** are obtained — Chief Harris explicitly tells Maddox on December 30, 2024 *"that is why there are no other quotes."* - **The technical justification** ("system compatibility" with surrounding agencies) is the same in both drafts. What changes is the **language** the ordinance uses to describe the procurement. The first draft uses *"Flock Safety is the sole source provider for the LPR system."* The final draft and the executed [[Ordinance O-25-09 — LPR Bid Waiver and Asset Forfeiture Appropriation|Ordinance O-25-09]] use *"Flock Safety is the only provider who can supply the LPR system in order to be in compliance with surrounding agencies."* ## Why the practice exists Maddox described a procedural concern about state and legislative treatment of the words "sole source." Current municipal law separately recognizes cooperative-purchase and single-source exceptions in Ark. Code Ann. section 14-58-104(20)–(21), while section 14-58-303 permits a governing-body bidding waiver by ordinance in exceptional situations where bidding is not feasible or practical. Neither provision makes a particular phrase the legal trigger. Whether Conway satisfied the applicable route depends on the ordinance, contract timing, municipal form of government, and complete authorization record. (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)); see [[Arkansas Municipal County and State Cooperative Procurement Law]]. The wiki does not adjudicate whether the laundered phrasing satisfies Arkansas law. The Arkansas state-level procurement rules that the practice avoids should be identified externally in a Tier-2 (statute) / Tier-3 (Arkansas Procurement Officials Association guidance) web-research task. ## Generalization beyond Conway The corpus does not establish a statewide pattern of wording changes. Jonesboro supplies a useful comparison: Resolution `R-EN-067-2023` expressly called Flock a "sole source provider" and waived bidding on compatibility grounds ([[Jonesboro Flock Procurement Expansion Records 2023]], p. 15). The two municipalities used similar compatibility rationales and different terminology; the legal consequence of that difference is not established by the records. Jonesboro now supplies the direct comparison. Resolution `R-EN-067-2023` expressly calls Flock "a sole source provider" and waives competitive bidding because the added services needed to interact and be compatible with the City's existing systems ([[Jonesboro Flock Procurement Expansion Records 2023]], `Ck 150933 Flock Group $3000.pdf`, p. 15). The two municipalities therefore used similar compatibility rationales but opposite terminology. ## Notes - **The edit was public in the enacted ordinance.** The Council passed the visible "only provider" wording 8-0. The record does not establish whether any separate state or local document was required or omitted. - **The sequence remains analytically important.** A budget rejection, asset-forfeiture pivot, pre-ordinance contract, compatibility justification, terminology edit, and later ordinance are proved. Their legal consequences must be evaluated separately rather than embedded in the label. - See [[Flock Camera-as-a-Service Procurement Model]] for the vendor side of the same pattern — the non-appropriation clause, the end-of-year discount, the "system compatibility" sole-source rationale that the vendor itself supplies. ## Comparison with the Pulaski County competitive-RFP track The [[pulaski-county-government/26-365/_overview|Pulaski County `#26-365`]] production documents a procurement that **did not rely on a sole-source claim**. [[Pulaski County Sheriff's Office|PCSO]]'s Flock procurement went through a full [[Competitive RFP Procurement (Arkansas Counties)|public competitive RFP]] (RFP-23-003) through the [[ARBid]] state portal, with 4 competing vendors ([[Flock Safety, Inc.|Flock]], [[Utility Associates]], [[John Wright Associates, Inc.]], [[Insight LPR, LLC]]) submitting bids and a 5-evaluator scoring panel selecting Flock on the basis of technical capability and recurring-lease cost. The cross-jurisdictional contrast: | Jurisdiction | "Sole source" language strategy | Why | |---|---|---| | **Conway PD** | "Sole source" replaced with "the only provider" | Maddox cited state and legislative concern; independent legal effect unresolved | | **Jonesboro PD** | Expressly calls Flock "a sole source provider" and waives competitive bidding | Compatibility with the City's existing systems under Resolution R-EN-067-2023 | | **LRPD (Cellebrite, PowerDMS, NetMotion, i2)** | Affirmative "single source" / "proprietary renewal" exemption-form filing | Compliance with [[Competitive-Bid Exemption (Sole-Source Procurement)|§ 14-58-104]] for unique-vendor procurements | | **Pulaski County (PCSO Flock)** | **No sole-source claim at all — competitive RFP procurement** | Full competition through ARBid; no exemption needed | The Pulaski County procurement demonstrates that the Conway sole-source-language-avoidance practice is **a procurement choice, not a structural necessity**. Arkansas counties (and presumably cities) can run formal competitive procurements for Flock-style ALPR systems when they choose to — the small-vendor-field outcome (a single winner emerging from a structurally Flock-favorable RFP scope) does not require any sole-source-procurement paperwork. The Pulaski County record shows that a competitive RFP can produce detailed bid and scoring records. It does not, without the complete county-order and appropriation record, establish that executive authority alone sufficed or that the route involved less lawful public authorization than Conway's. ## 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.